scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Author

Ann Netten

Bio: Ann Netten is an academic researcher from University of Kent. The author has contributed to research in topics: Quality (business) & Quality of life (healthcare). The author has an hindex of 41, co-authored 252 publications receiving 6456 citations. Previous affiliations of Ann Netten include Kent State University & King's College London.


Papers
More filters
01 Jan 2006
TL;DR: User experience surveys (UESs) are regarded as an important part of the overall performance framework for social care and, providing councils with information about how they might improve services locally, and are required to submit their results to government bodies so that the relative performance of the CSSRs can be judged.
Abstract: For some time now councils with social services responsibilities (CSSRs) have been required to conduct surveys of user’s experience of social services. These have taken place nationally in three-yearly cycles. In 2002/03 the survey was for older people, in 2003/04 it was for younger adults with physical and sensory impairments, and in 2004/05 it was for children. 2005/06 marked the beginning of the second wave of the cycle. The mandate for conducting surveys of user’s experiences and satisfaction with services was first given in the white paper Modern Local Government: in Touch with the People (Department for the Environment, Trade and the Regions, 1998). In 2002 the Office of National Statistics (ONS) and SPRU developed a set of questionnaires for this purpose (Qureshi and Rowlands, 2004). Subsequent national surveys have drawn on this work to identify a set of compulsory questions for each round. User experience surveys (UESs) are regarded as an important part of the overall performance framework for social care and, providing councils with information about how they might improve services locally. Local authorities are required to submit their results to government bodies so that the relative performance of the CSSRs can be judged. This report is composed of five sections. The aims and objectives of the report are outlined in the second section and the method used to gather the data is outlined in section 3. In section 4 we report on the findings from the fieldwork and draw some conclusions and recommendations for the national survey in section 5. The topic guides for the focus groups and interviews are included in the appendices along with a brief discussion of the findings from the focus groups and a copy of the final extended questionnaire.

628 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: A measure of social care outcome, an equivalent to the quality-adjusted life year (QALY) in health, which could be used in a range of circumstances and has considerable potential, was developed and tested.
Abstract: Objective The aim of this study was to develop a measure of social care outcome, an equivalent to the quality-adjusted life year (QALY) in health, which could be used in a range of circumstances. Design The project drew on previous and parallel work developing the Adult Social Care Outcome Toolkit and the national Adult Social Care Survey. We developed and tested an instrument designed to reflect service users' social care-related quality of life (SCRQoL) and tested it with 30 service users from a variety of user groups and 300 older home care service users. In parallel, we explored discrete choice experiment (DCE) and best-worst scaling (BWS) approaches to preference elicitation with 300 members of the general population, and cognitively tested these with service users. We also cognitively tested a computer-aided time trade-off (TTO) exercise using SCRQoL attributes with members of the general population. In the second phase, using the finalised instruments, BWS interviews were conducted with 500 members of the general population, TTO interviews with a follow-up sample of 126 of these respondents, and BWS interviews with 458 people using equipment services. Main outcome measures The final measure had eight domains: personal cleanliness and comfort, accommodation cleanliness and comfort, food and drink, safety, social participation and involvement, occupation, control over daily life and dignity. In addition to measuring current SCRQoL, the instrument includes questions used to establish service users' views of their 'expected' SCRQoL in the absence of services. The difference between a person's current and 'expected' SCRQoL provides an indicator of service impact. Results There was good evidence for the validity of the descriptive system and the validity of the current, expected and SCRQoL gain scales. The DCE and BWS approaches yielded similar results and, once introductions made clear, were understood by service users. BWS was used for the main stages, as it had technical and cognitive advantages. The computer-aided approach to TTO worked well, and respondents found questions acceptable and understandable. There were no substantive differences in the preferences of service users and the general population. The key domain was control over daily life, with the lowest and highest levels strongly estimated in all models. After allowing for observable heterogeneity, service users' preferences appeared to be more closely associated with their own SCRQoL than with those of the general population. The consistency of the results with the results of a previous study allowed the final model to be based on the preferences of 1000 members of the general population. A formula based on the relationship between TTO and BWS values was estimated for a social care QALY, with '0' equivalent to 'being dead' and '1' being the 'ideal' SCRQoL state. Members of the population experienced significantly higher SCRQoL than service users. Conclusions Although further work is needed, particularly to develop an equivalent measure for informal carers and to explore the links with health QALYs, the measure has considerable potential. A number of methodological advances were achieved, including the first application of TTO in a social care context and use of BWS to establish service user preferences. Funding The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

328 citations

01 Oct 2008
TL;DR: This evaluation is the first robust UK study of the implementation and impact of personalisation approaches in social care.
Abstract: Individual budgets (IBs) were piloted as a new way of providing support for older and disabled adults and people with mental health problems eligible for publicly funded social care. The Department of Health set up IB pilot projects in 13 English local authorities, running from November 2005 to December 2007, and commissioned a national evaluation. This evaluation is the first robust UK study of the implementation and impact of personalisation approaches in social care.

240 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: A study that used discrete choice experiment (DCE) methodology to estimate quality weights for a of social care outcome measure had good test-retest reliability and converged with preferences elicited from a rating exercise.

190 citations


Cited by
More filters
01 Jan 2006
TL;DR: For example, Standardi pružaju okvir koje ukazuju na ucinkovitost kvalitetnih instrumenata u onim situacijama u kojima je njihovo koristenje potkrijepljeno validacijskim podacima.
Abstract: Pedagosko i psiholosko testiranje i procjenjivanje spadaju među najvažnije doprinose znanosti o ponasanju nasem drustvu i pružaju temeljna i znacajna poboljsanja u odnosu na ranije postupke. Iako se ne može ustvrditi da su svi testovi dovoljno usavrseni niti da su sva testiranja razborita i korisna, postoji velika kolicina informacija koje ukazuju na ucinkovitost kvalitetnih instrumenata u onim situacijama u kojima je njihovo koristenje potkrijepljeno validacijskim podacima. Pravilna upotreba testova može dovesti do boljih odluka o pojedincima i programima nego sto bi to bio slucaj bez njihovog koristenja, a također i ukazati na put za siri i pravedniji pristup obrazovanju i zaposljavanju. Međutim, losa upotreba testova može dovesti do zamjetne stete nanesene ispitanicima i drugim sudionicima u procesu donosenja odluka na temelju testovnih podataka. Cilj Standarda je promoviranje kvalitetne i eticne upotrebe testova te uspostavljanje osnovice za ocjenu kvalitete postupaka testiranja. Svrha objavljivanja Standarda je uspostavljanje kriterija za evaluaciju testova, provedbe testiranja i posljedica upotrebe testova. Iako bi evaluacija prikladnosti testa ili njegove primjene trebala ovisiti prvenstveno o strucnim misljenjima, Standardi pružaju okvir koji osigurava obuhvacanje svih relevantnih pitanja. Bilo bi poželjno da svi autori, sponzori, nakladnici i korisnici profesionalnih testova usvoje Standarde te da poticu druge da ih također prihvate.

3,905 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Transfer of adult patients with severe but potentially reversible respiratory failure, whose Murray score exceeds 3.0 or who have a pH of less than 7.20 on optimum conventional management, to a centre with an ECMO-based management protocol is recommended to significantly improve survival without severe disability.

2,783 citations

Book
01 Jan 1997
TL;DR: This new edition of Ann Bowling's well-known and highly respected text is a comprehensive, easy to read, guide to the range of methods used to study and evaluate health and health services.
Abstract: This new edition of Ann Bowling's well-known and highly respected text has been thoroughly revised and updated to reflect key methodological developments in health research. It is a comprehensive, easy to read, guide to the range of methods used to study and evaluate health and health services. It describes the concepts and methods used by the main disciplines involved in health research, including: demography, epidemiology, health economics, psychology and sociology.The research methods described cover the assessment of health needs, morbidity and mortality trends and rates, costing health services, sampling for survey research, cross-sectional and longitudinal survey design, experimental methods and techniques of group assignment, questionnaire design, interviewing techniques, coding and analysis of quantitative data, methods and analysis of qualitative observational studies, and types of unstructured interviewing. With new material on topics such as cluster randomization, utility analyses, patients' preferences, and perception of risk, the text is aimed at students and researchers of health and health services. It has also been designed for health professionals and policy makers who have responsibility for applying research findings in practice, and who need to know how to judge the value of that research.

2,602 citations