When you can't have the cake and eat it too: a study of medical doctors' priorities in complex choice situations

Heterogeneity in physician's job preferences in a dual practice context - Evidence from a DCE

Many countries are facing challenges in recruiting and retaining physicians, particularly in regions where the public and private sectors compete for doctors. Understanding the factors influencing physicians' job choices can help inform policies aimed at attracting and retaining this valuable workforce. This study aims to elicit the strength of physicians' preferences regarding various job-related aspects, including earnings, time flexibility, discussion of clinical cases, frequency of facilities and equipment updates, training opportunities and autonomy in decision making. To achieve this, a Discrete Choice Experiment (DCE) was administered to 697 physicians. Each participant completed a series of eight choice tasks, where they had to choose between two hypothetical jobs differing in these attributes with levels mirroring positions in the public and private sectors in Portugal. The resulting choices were analysed using mixed logit, generalized multinomial logit and latent classes models to account for diverse unobserved variations in physicians' preferences and to explore preference heterogeneity across different observable characteristics. Jobs that offered more autonomy and training opportunities were strongly preferred, as physicians would require additional compensation to work with reduced autonomy (equivalent to 28.62% of gross income) or less frequent training (equivalent to 22.75%). This study also shows that the ranking of the job characteristics is similar between physicians working exclusively in the public sector and those engaged in dual practice. Nevertheless, public sector physicians place more emphasis on the availability of frequent training possibilities and frequent updates of facilities and equipment compared to their counterparts in dual practice. These findings contribute to existing knowledge by highlighting the significance of non-monetary attributes and shedding light on the preferences of physicians across various employment scenarios. They offer valuable insights for policy development aimed at influencing physicians' allocation of time between sectors.

Systematic review and validity assessment of methods used in discrete choice experiments of primary healthcare professionals

INTRODUCTION

Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) have been used to measure patient and healthcare professionals preferences in a range of settings internationally. Using DCEs in primary care is valuable for determining how to improve rational shared decision making. The purpose of this systematic review is to assess the validity of the methods used for DCEs assessing the decision making of healthcare professionals in primary care.

MAIN BODY

A systematic search was conducted to identify articles with original data from a discrete choice experiment where the population was primary healthcare professionals. All publication dates from database inception to 29th February 2020 were included. A data extraction and validity assessment template based on guidelines was used. After screening, 34 studies met the eligibility criteria and were included in the systematic review. The sample sizes of the DCEs ranged from 10 to 3727. The published DCEs often provided insufficient detail about the process of determining the attributes and levels. The majority of the studies did not involve primary care healthcare professionals outside of the research team in attribute identification and selection. Less than 80% of the DCEs were piloted and few papers investigated internal or external validity.

CONCLUSIONS

For findings to translate into improvements in rational shared decision making in primary care DCEs need to be internally and externally valid and the findings need to be able to be communicated to stakeholders in a way that is understandable and relevant.

Influence of disease activity on RA treatment choices in countries with restricted access to expensive, innovative drugs: a discrete choice experiment among rheumatologists

Objective

To assess the influence of disease activity of patients with rheumatoid arthritis on treatment choices of rheumatologists in countries with restricted access to expensive, innovative drugs.

Methods

Rheumatologists from Hungary, Romania and UK were invited to complete two consecutive discrete choice experiments with hypothetical drug treatments for two different patient profiles: high and moderate disease activity. Rheumatologists were asked to choose repeatedly between two unlabelled treatment options that differed in five attributes: efficacy (expected improvement and achieved disease activity state), safety (probability of serious adverse events), patient's preference (level of agreement), total medication costs and cost-effectiveness. A heteroscedastic discrete choice model using interaction terms between attribute levels and patient profiles (binary variable) was used to assess the preferences of rheumatologists towards each attribute and the influence of the patient profile.

Results

Overall, 148 rheumatologists completed the survey (46% females, mean age 49 years, 49% academic). For both patient profiles, efficacy dominated the treatment choice over patient's preference, safety and economic aspects. However, for patients with high compared with moderate disease activity, the importance of drug efficacy significantly increased (from 48% for moderate to 57% for high disease activity), whereas the importance of patient's preference significantly decreased (from 15% to 11%). No significant differences were observed for economic and safety considerations.

Conclusion

Rheumatologists were willing to give up some efficacy to account for patient's preference when choosing treatments for patients with moderate compared to high disease activity. Disease activity however did not influence importance of economic aspects in treatment choices.

GPs' implicit prioritization through clinical choices - evidence from three national health services

We present results from an extensive discrete choice experiment, which was conducted in three countries (Norway, Scotland, and England) with the aim of disclosing stated prescription behaviour in different decision making contexts and across different cost containment cultures. We show that GPs in all countries respond to information about societal costs, benefits and effectiveness, and that they make trade-offs between them. The UK GPs have higher willingness to accept costs when they can prescribe medicines that are cheaper or more preferred by the patient, while Norwegian GPs tend to have higher willingness to accept costs for attributes regarding effectiveness or the doctors' experience. In general, there is a substantial amount of heterogeneity also within each country. We discuss the results from the DCE in the light of the GPs' two conflicting agency roles and what we know about the incentive structures and cultures in the different countries.

Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature

BACKGROUND

Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) are increasingly used in health economics to address a wide range of health policy-related concerns.

OBJECTIVE

Broadly adopting the methodology of an earlier systematic review of health-related DCEs, which covered the period 2001-2008, we report whether earlier trends continued during 2009-2012.

METHODS

This paper systematically reviews health-related DCEs published between 2009 and 2012, using the same database as the earlier published review (PubMed) to obtain citations, and the same range of search terms.

RESULTS

A total of 179 health-related DCEs for 2009-2012 met the inclusion criteria for the review. We found a continuing trend towards conducting DCEs across a broader range of countries. However, the trend towards including fewer attributes was reversed, whilst the trend towards interview-based DCEs reversed because of increased computer administration. The trend towards using more flexible econometric models, including mixed logit and latent class, has also continued. Reporting of monetary values has fallen compared with earlier periods, but the proportion of studies estimating trade-offs between health outcomes and experience factors, or valuing outcomes in terms of utility scores, has increased, although use of odds ratios and probabilities has declined. The reassuring trend towards the use of more flexible and appropriate DCE designs and econometric methods has been reinforced by the increased use of qualitative methods to inform DCE processes and results. However, qualitative research methods are being used less often to inform attribute selection, which may make DCEs more susceptible to omitted variable bias if the decision framework is not known prior to the research project.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of DCEs in healthcare continues to grow dramatically, as does the scope of applications across an expanding range of countries. There is increasing evidence that more sophisticated approaches to DCE design and analytical techniques are improving the quality of final outputs. That said, recent evidence that the use of qualitative methods to inform attribute selection has declined is of concern.

Education and decision making at the time of triptan prescribing: patient expectations vs actual practice

BACKGROUND

Optimizing patient satisfaction with their medical care and maximizing patient adherence with treatment plans requires an understanding of patient preferences regarding education and their role in decision making when treatments are prescribed.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the congruence between patient expectations and actual practice regarding education and decision making at the time a triptan is prescribed.

METHODS

This multicenter cross-sectional survey was performed by headache fellow members of the American Headache Society Headache Fellows Research Consortium at their respective tertiary care headache clinics. Migraine patients who were new patients to the headache clinic and who were current triptan users (use within prior 3 months and for ≥1 year) or past triptan users (no use within 6 months; prior use within 2 years) completed questionnaires that assessed the education they received and their role in decision making at the time a triptan was first prescribed as well as their desire for education and participation in decision making when a triptan is prescribed.

RESULTS

Consistent with patient preference, most participants received the majority of their education about the triptan from the prescriber's office (70.2%). In descending rank order, participants most desired to be informed about how to decide if a triptan should be taken, when during the course of migraine a triptan should be taken, possible side effects, cost, and how to obtain refills. Regarding side effects, most participants preferred to receive education about the most common side effects of a triptan rather than addressing all possible side effects. Regarding triptan dosing, participants desired to be informed in descending order of importance about taking other medications with triptans, how many doses can be taken for each migraine, how many doses can be taken each week/month, what to do if the triptan does not work, and the triptan mechanism of action. The vast majority of participants (92%) preferred that the decision to prescribe a triptan be a joint decision between the patient and the provider. In actual practice, participants were not as involved in decision making as they would like to be, with patients reporting that the prescriber was the sole decision maker 55.1% of the time. Participants had confidence in their providers (87.7%) and generally felt they did a good job educating them about the triptan (71.1%).

CONCLUSIONS

Based on this study, it is clear that patients prefer the shared model approach to medical decision making in regards to the prescription of triptans. The majority of patients received education that was generally consistent with their desires. Patients preferred that the prescribing provider be the primary source of information. The most desired educational topics included when/if a triptan should be taken, the number of times a triptan can be taken for a single migraine, co-administration with other acute medications, and the most common side effects. Focusing on these topics should enhance patient satisfaction and may improve compliance.