1
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Preferences for Postacute Care at Home vs Facilities

      research-article

      Read this article at

          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Key Points

          Question

          What are the postacute care preferences of patients and caregivers between home-based and facility-based settings?

          Findings

          In this survey study and discrete choice experiment, patients and caregivers strongly preferred high-quality, home-based care; however, when caregiving burden exceeded 8 hours daily or participants faced socioeconomic challenges like job insecurity, caregivers’ preference shifted toward facility-based care, which were consistent across racial and educational backgrounds, and health statuses. Prior experience with postacute care was associated with an increased willingness to pay for home-based options.

          Meaning

          The results of this survey study suggest that despite a predominant preference for home-based care, targeted support for disadvantaged groups facing caregiver constraints and socioeconomic hardships is essential to ensure equitable access and promote patient-centric postacute care.

          Abstract

          Importance

          Two in 5 US hospital stays result in rehabilitative postacute care, typically through skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) or home health agencies (HHAs). However, a lack of clear guidelines and understanding of patient and caregiver preferences make it challenging to promote high-value patient-centered care.

          Objective

          To assess preferences and willingness to pay for facility-based vs home-based postacute care among patients and caregivers, considering demographic variations.

          Design, Setting, and Participants

          In September 2022, a nationally representative survey was conducted with participants 45 years or older. Using a discrete choice experiment, participants acting as patients or caregivers chose between facility-based and home-based postacute care that best met their preferences, needs, and family conditions. Survey weights were applied to generate nationally representative estimates.

          Main Outcomes and Measures

          Preferences and willingness to pay for various attributes of postacute care settings were assessed, examining variation based on demographic factors, socioeconomic status, job security, and previous care experiences.

          Results

          A total of 2077 adults were invited to participate in the survey; 1555 (74.9%) completed the survey. In the weighted sample, 52.9% of participants were women, 6.5% were Asian or Pacific Islander, 1.7% were American Indian or Alaska Native, 11.2% were Black or African American, 78.4% were White; the mean (SD) age was 62.6 (9.6) years; and there was a survey completion rate of 74.9%. Patients and caregivers showed a substantial willingness to pay for home-based and high-quality care. Patients and caregivers were willing to pay an additional $58.08 per day (95% CI, 45.32-70.83) and $45.54 per day (95% CI, 31.09-59.99) for HHA care compared with a shared SNF room, respectively. However, increased demands on caregiver time within an HHA scenario and socioeconomic challenges, such as insecure employment, shifted caregivers’ preferences toward facility-based care. There was a strong aversion to below average quality. To avoid below average SNF care, patients and caregivers were willing to pay $75.21 per day (95% CI, 61.68-88.75) and $79.10 per day (95% CI, 63.29-94.91) compared with average-quality care, respectively. Additionally, prior awareness and experience with postacute care was associated with willingness to pay for home-based care. No differences in preferences among patients and caregivers based on race, educational background, urban or rural residence, general health status, or housing type were observed.

          Conclusions and Relevance

          The findings of this survey study underscore a prevailing preference for home-based postacute care, aligning with current policy trends. However, attention is warranted for disadvantaged groups who are potentially overlooked during the shift toward home-based care, particularly those facing caregiver constraints and socioeconomic hardships. Ensuring equitable support and improved quality measure tools are crucial for promoting patient-centric postacute care, with emphasis on addressing the needs of marginalized groups.

          Abstract

          This survey study examines preferences and willingness to pay for facility-based vs home-based postacute care among patients and caregivers.

          Related collections

          Most cited references18

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies.

          Much of biomedical research is observational. The reporting of such research is often inadequate, which hampers the assessment of its strengths and weaknesses and of a study's generalizability. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Initiative developed recommendations on what should be included in an accurate and complete report of an observational study. We defined the scope of the recommendations to cover three main study designs: cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies. We convened a 2-day workshop in September 2004, with methodologists, researchers, and journal editors to draft a checklist of items. This list was subsequently revised during several meetings of the coordinating group and in e-mail discussions with the larger group of STROBE contributors, taking into account empirical evidence and methodological considerations. The workshop and the subsequent iterative process of consultation and revision resulted in a checklist of 22 items (the STROBE Statement) that relate to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion sections of articles. Eighteen items are common to all three study designs and four are specific for cohort, case-control, or cross-sectional studies. A detailed Explanation and Elaboration document is published separately and is freely available on the web sites of PLoS Medicine, Annals of Internal Medicine, and Epidemiology. We hope that the STROBE Statement will contribute to improving the quality of reporting of observational studies.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Conjoint analysis applications in health--a checklist: a report of the ISPOR Good Research Practices for Conjoint Analysis Task Force.

            The application of conjoint analysis (including discrete-choice experiments and other multiattribute stated-preference methods) in health has increased rapidly over the past decade. A wider acceptance of these methods is limited by an absence of consensus-based methodological standards. The International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) Good Research Practices for Conjoint Analysis Task Force was established to identify good research practices for conjoint-analysis applications in health. The task force met regularly to identify the important steps in a conjoint analysis, to discuss good research practices for conjoint analysis, and to develop and refine the key criteria for identifying good research practices. ISPOR members contributed to this process through an extensive consultation process. A final consensus meeting was held to revise the article using these comments, and those of a number of international reviewers. Task force findings are presented as a 10-item checklist covering: 1) research question; 2) attributes and levels; 3) construction of tasks; 4) experimental design; 5) preference elicitation; 6) instrument design; 7) data-collection plan; 8) statistical analyses; 9) results and conclusions; and 10) study presentation. A primary question relating to each of the 10 items is posed, and three sub-questions examine finer issues within items. Although the checklist should not be interpreted as endorsing any specific methodological approach to conjoint analysis, it can facilitate future training activities and discussions of good research practices for the application of conjoint-analysis methods in health care studies. Copyright © 2011 International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Constructing experimental designs for discrete-choice experiments: report of the ISPOR Conjoint Analysis Experimental Design Good Research Practices Task Force.

              Stated-preference methods are a class of evaluation techniques for studying the preferences of patients and other stakeholders. While these methods span a variety of techniques, conjoint-analysis methods-and particularly discrete-choice experiments (DCEs)-have become the most frequently applied approach in health care in recent years. Experimental design is an important stage in the development of such methods, but establishing a consensus on standards is hampered by lack of understanding of available techniques and software. This report builds on the previous ISPOR Conjoint Analysis Task Force Report: Conjoint Analysis Applications in Health-A Checklist: A Report of the ISPOR Good Research Practices for Conjoint Analysis Task Force. This report aims to assist researchers specifically in evaluating alternative approaches to experimental design, a difficult and important element of successful DCEs. While this report does not endorse any specific approach, it does provide a guide for choosing an approach that is appropriate for a particular study. In particular, it provides an overview of the role of experimental designs for the successful implementation of the DCE approach in health care studies, and it provides researchers with an introduction to constructing experimental designs on the basis of study objectives and the statistical model researchers have selected for the study. The report outlines the theoretical requirements for designs that identify choice-model preference parameters and summarizes and compares a number of available approaches for constructing experimental designs. The task-force leadership group met via bimonthly teleconferences and in person at ISPOR meetings in the United States and Europe. An international group of experimental-design experts was consulted during this process to discuss existing approaches for experimental design and to review the task force's draft reports. In addition, ISPOR members contributed to developing a consensus report by submitting written comments during the review process and oral comments during two forum presentations at the ISPOR 16th and 17th Annual International Meetings held in Baltimore (2011) and Washington, DC (2012). Copyright © 2013 International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                JAMA Health Forum
                JAMA Health Forum
                JAMA Health Forum
                American Medical Association
                2689-0186
                26 April 2024
                April 2024
                26 April 2024
                : 5
                : 4
                : e240678
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Harvard University Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, Boston, Massachusetts
                [2 ]Department of Health Care Policy, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
                [3 ]Center for Health Decision Science, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts
                [4 ]Department of Medicine, University of Rochester, Rochester, New York
                [5 ]Department of Health Policy and Management, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts
                Author notes
                Article Information
                Accepted for Publication: February 28, 2024.
                Published: April 26, 2024. doi:10.1001/jamahealthforum.2024.0678
                Open Access: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License. © 2024 Geng F et al. JAMA Health Forum.
                Corresponding Author: Fangli Geng, PhD, Harvard University, 180 Longwood Ave, Boston, MA 02115 ( fag686@ 123456mail.harvard.edu ).
                Author Contributions: Dr Geng had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.
                Concept and design: Geng, Rosenthal, Resch, Grabowski.
                Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: Geng, McGarry, Zubizarreta, Resch.
                Drafting of the manuscript: Geng.
                Critical review of the manuscript for important intellectual content: All authors.
                Statistical analysis: Geng, McGarry, Zubizarreta.
                Obtained funding: Grabowski.
                Administrative, technical, or material support: Geng.
                Supervision: McGarry, Rosenthal, Grabowski.
                Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr McGarry reported grants from the National Institute on Aging during the conduct of the study as well as grants from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and National Institute on Aging and personal fees from the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) and Foundation for Post-Acute and Long-Term Care Medicine outside the submitted work. Dr Grabowski reported personal fees from the AARP, Analysis Group, GRAIL, LLC, and Medicare Payment Advisory Commission outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.
                Funding/Support: This study was supported by a grant from the National Institute on Aging of the National Institutes of Health (P01 AG032952).
                Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The funding organizations had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.
                Disclaimer: This content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.
                Data Sharing Statement: See Supplement 2.
                Article
                aoi240014
                10.1001/jamahealthforum.2024.0678
                11065156
                38669031
                4f660328-6f6a-4b88-822b-109663d75404
                Copyright 2024 Geng F et al. JAMA Health Forum.

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License.

                History
                : 11 October 2023
                : 28 February 2024
                Categories
                Research
                Research
                Original Investigation
                Featured
                Online Only
                Comments

                Comments

                Comment on this article