. 2021 Jan 2;21:1. doi: 10.1186/s12877-020-01943-8

Table 3.

Comparison of levels of met needs between DP service users sample and adult social care users according to national data

	Average percentage of service users reporting met needs, by working definition¹										Average diff. Between sample score and ASCOF scores for all user groups for all time periods^h
	Sample	Adult Social Care Outcome Framework (ASCOF) results
	DP Users (2005–2007)	2010–2011 ⁽¹⁾	2011–2012 ⁽²⁾	2012–2013 ⁽³⁾	2013–2014 ⁽⁴⁾	2014–2015 ⁽⁵⁾	2015–2016	2016–2017	2017–2018	2018–2019
Food and nutrition	93	93	93	93	93	92	92	–	–	–	0.2
Personal care	92	93	93	92	93	92	93	–	–	–	−0.7*
Safety	76	61	62	63	64	67	67	71 ^a	71 ^a	71 ^a	8.0***
Social participation	70	43	43	43	43 ^b	44 ^c	45^d	43^e	44^f	43^g	26.5***
Control over daily living	83	73	73	75	74	75	74	75 ^a	75 ^a	74 ^a	9.0***
Home environment	85	93	93	93	93	93	94	–	–	–	−8.2***
Leisure/ occupation	65	61	63	64	65	66	67	–	–	–	0.7

^1,2,3,4,5,6 Sources are: 70,71

^aSources are: 72, 73

^b,c,d,e,f,g Sources are:75,76,77,78,79,80, respectively. National average outcomes for social participation for the years 2010–2013 are estimates

^h Results of a paired samples T-test (alpha level 0.05)

*p = < 0.05

***p = < 0.001

Sources: 187, 188

Notes

National average outcomes for the domain of ‘control over daily living’, the domain of ‘safety’ from 2016 onwards and ‘social participation’ report actual figures for over 65’s from 2014 to 2015 onwards. All other figures are adjusted for over 65’s with a 2% reduction of the published national average, to adjust for differences between reported levels of met need between under and over 65’s using values for ‘control over daily living’ from 2015 to 2016 onwards as the reference

There appears to be a slight upward trend in adult social are users reporting some or complete unmet needs from 2014/15 onwards. Data from this point onwards includes service users who fully fund the cost of services themselves. Prior to this time these clients were not included