Cookies?
Library Header Image
LSE Research Online LSE Library Services

Exploring the feasibility and validity of a pragmatic approach to estimating the impact of long-term care: the ‘expected’ ASCOT method

Malley, Juliette, Rand, Stacey, Netten, Anne, Towers, Ann-Marie and Forder, Julien (2019) Exploring the feasibility and validity of a pragmatic approach to estimating the impact of long-term care: the ‘expected’ ASCOT method. Journal of Long-Term Care. ISSN 2516-9122

[img] Text (Journal of Long Term Health) - Published Version
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial No Derivatives.

Download (934kB)

Identification Number: 10.21953/lse.sypd8fxo2bs5

Abstract

Context: Measuring the impact of long-term care (LTC) is essential if we are to allocate limited resources effectively. Objectives: We explored the feasibility and validity of a pragmatic approach to evaluation, known as the counterfactual self-estimation of programme participants (CSEPP). CSEPP forms part of the Adult Social Care Outcomes Toolkit (ASCOT), and is referred to as the ‘expected’ method since participants estimate their expected quality of life (QoL) in the absence of services. Methods: We used survey data from interviews with 748 LTC users in 22 English local authorities, which included questions on self- and interviewer-assessed understanding of the ‘expected’ questions. We used these data to assess feasibility. Construct validity was assessed by examining hypothesised associations between the expected score and individual characteristics. Bias was assessed by comparing the CSEPP impact estimate to one produced using the instrumental variables appproach used by Forder et al. (2016, 2018) on the same dataset. Findings: We found evidence that the CSEPP/‘expected’ method was feasible and the self-estimated counterfactual outcome scores valid. There were indications that the method is less appropriate for some groups and that it may slightly overestimate the impact of LTC. Limitations: The main limitation is that the betweenmethods comparison assumes that the instrumental variables approach provides a largely unbiased estimate of the effect of LTC, which is unlikely to be the case. Implications: The CSEPP/‘expected’ method is a useful tool in the LTC context, but more research is needed to understand potential sources of bias and its feasibility with certain groups.

Item Type: Article
Additional Information: © 2019 The Authors
Divisions: Personal Social Services Research Unit
Date Deposited: 04 Apr 2019 12:06
Last Modified: 09 Jul 2020 23:30
URI: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/id/eprint/100422

Actions (login required)

View Item View Item

Downloads

Downloads per month over past year

View more statistics