You are here

  • Home
  • Archive
  • Volume 2, Issue 2
  • PROSpER: PReferences for the Organisation of acute health Services for oldER people: protocol for a mixed methods study

Article Text

Article menu

Download PDFPDF

XML
Health services research
Protocol
PROSpER: PReferences for the Organisation of acute health Services for oldER people: protocol for a mixed methods study
  1. Kirsten Howard1,
  2. Glenn Arendts1,2,3,
  3. Stephen Jan4,
  4. Matthew Beck5
  1. 1School of Public Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
  2. 2Centre for Clinical Research in Emergency Medicine, Western Australian Institute for Medical Research, Perth, Western Australia, Australia
  3. 3School of Primary, Aboriginal and Rural Health Care, University of Western Australia, Crawley, Western Australia, Australia
  4. 4The George Institute for Global Health, Camperdown, New South Wales, Australia
  5. 5Institute for Transport and Logistics Studies, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
  1. Correspondence to Dr Kirsten Howard; kirsten.howard{at}sydney.edu.au

Abstract

Background Organisation of acute care services for people living in residential aged care facilities (RACF) is a complex area of health policy. For people living in RACF, the emergency department is often used to provide acute care; needs of RACF residents, however, are not always well met. Alternative models of delivering care must be acceptable to a variety of stakeholders; however, little is known about the values and preferences that people attach to aspects of how and where care is delivered.

Methods/design The PROSpER Study examines people's preferences for the organisation of acute healthcare services for older people in RACF. The authors aim to (1) determine which factors influence preferences of residents, carers and providers for how and where acute care is delivered and (2) determine the relative importance of these factors and the acceptable trade-offs between them. Qualitative and quantitative methods will be used. One-on-one interviews will be conducted with RACF residents, their families, staff of RACF and emergency department staff. A discrete choice study will then be designed to quantitatively assess preferences for alternative models of care delivery. Approximately 600 respondents from three respondent groups will be surveyed: older people living in RACF, family members of aged care residents and staff of RACF. A mixed logit model will be used; results will be expressed as parameter estimates (β) and odds of choosing one option over an alternative. Trade-offs between attributes will also be calculated.

Ethics and dissemination The PROSpER Study has been approved by the University of Sydney, Human Research Ethics Committee (Protocol numbers 10653 and 14382) and Royal Perth Hospital Ethics Committee (reference 2009/045). Results will be published in peer-reviewed scientific journals and via conference presentations; a newsletter will also be provided to study participants. A stakeholder roundtable will also be held to discuss the results.

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial License, which permits use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non commercial and is otherwise in compliance with the license. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/ and http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/legalcode.

https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2012-001081

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • To cite: Howard K, Arendts G, Jan S, et al. PROSpER: PReferences for the Organisation of acute health Services for oldER people: protocol for a mixed methods study. BMJ Open 2012;2:e001081. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2012-001081

    • Contributors GA and KH were responsible for the conceptual design of the study. All authors participated in revisions to the study design and approved the final study design. All authors were involved in drafting and revising the manuscript. All authors are involved in the implementation of the project and have read and approved the final manuscript.

    • Funding The PROSpER Study is funded by the Australian Research Council Discovery Project grant number DP120100770. The funders have no role in study design; collection, management, analysis and interpretation of data; nor in writing of any reports or the decision to submit the reports for publication.

    • Competing interests None.

    • Ethics approval Ethics approval was provided by University of Sydney Human Research Ethics Committee; Royal Perth Hospital Ethics Committee.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.

    • Data sharing statement No additional data available.