1
|
Ben-Aharon O, Iskrov G, Sagy I, Greenberg D. Willingness to pay for cancer prevention, screening, diagnosis, and treatment: a systematic review. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 2023; 23:281-295. [PMID: 36635646 DOI: 10.1080/14737167.2023.2167713] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/14/2023]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Willingness to pay (WTP) studies examine the maximum amount of money an individual is willing to pay for a specified health intervention, and can be used to inform coverage and reimbursement decisions. Our objectives were to assess how people value cancer-related interventions, identify differences in the methodologies used, and review the trends in studies' publication. AREAS COVERED We extracted PubMed and EconLit articles published in 1997-2020 that reported WTP for cancer-related interventions, characterized the methodological differences and summarized each intervention's mean and median WTP values. We reviewed 1,331 abstracts and identified 103 relevant WTP studies, of which 37 (36%) focused on treatment followed by screening (26), prevention (21), diagnosis (7) and other interventions (12). The methods used to determine WTP values were primarily discrete-choice questions (n = 54, 52%), bidding games (15), payment cards (12) and open-ended questions (12). We found a wide variation in WTP reported values ranged from below $100 to over $20,000. EXPERT OPINION The WTP literature on oncology interventions has grown rapidly. There is considerable heterogeneity with respect to the type of interventions and diseases assessed, the respondents' characteristics, and the study methodologies. This points to the need to establish international guidelines for best practices in this field.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Omer Ben-Aharon
- Department of Health Policy and Management, School of Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beersheba, Israel
| | - Georgi Iskrov
- Department of Social Medicine and Public Health, Faculty of Public Health, Medical University of Plovdiv, Bulgaria
| | - Iftach Sagy
- Department of Health Policy and Management, School of Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beersheba, Israel.,Soroka Medical Center, and Faculty of Health Sciences, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Israel
| | - Dan Greenberg
- Department of Health Policy and Management, School of Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beersheba, Israel
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Karim S, Craig BM, Vass C, Groothuis-Oudshoorn CGM. Current Practices for Accounting for Preference Heterogeneity in Health-Related Discrete Choice Experiments: A Systematic Review. PHARMACOECONOMICS 2022; 40:943-956. [PMID: 35960434 DOI: 10.1007/s40273-022-01178-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 07/12/2022] [Indexed: 06/15/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Accounting for preference heterogeneity is a growing analytical practice in health-related discrete choice experiments (DCEs). As heterogeneity may be examined from different stakeholder perspectives with different methods, identifying the breadth of these methodological approaches and understanding the differences are major steps to provide guidance on good research practices. OBJECTIVES Our objective was to systematically summarize current practices that account for preference heterogeneity based on the published DCEs related to healthcare. METHODS This systematic review is part of the project led by the Professional Society for Health Economics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) health preference research special interest group. The systematic review conducted systematic searches on the PubMed, OVID, and Web of Science databases, as well as on two recently published reviews, to identify articles. The review included health-related DCE articles published between 1 January 2000 and 30 March 2020. All the included articles also presented evidence on preference heterogeneity analysis based on either explained or unexplained factors or both. RESULTS Overall, 342 of the 2202 (16%) articles met the inclusion/exclusion criteria for extraction. The trend showed that analyses of preference heterogeneity increased substantially after 2010 and that such analyses mainly examined heterogeneity due to observable or unobservable factors in individual characteristics. Heterogeneity through observable differences (i.e., explained heterogeneity) is identified among 131 (40%) of the 342 articles and included one or more interactions between an attribute variable and an observable characteristic of the respondent. To capture unobserved heterogeneity (i.e., unexplained heterogeneity), the studies largely estimated either a mixed logit (n = 205, 60%) or a latent-class logit (n = 112, 32.7%) model. Few studies (n = 38, 11%) explored scale heterogeneity or heteroskedasticity. CONCLUSIONS Providing preference heterogeneity evidence in health-related DCEs has been found as an increasingly used practice among researchers. In recent studies, controlling for unexplained preference heterogeneity has been seen as a common practice rather than explained ones (e.g., interactions), yet a lack of providing methodological details has been observed in many studies that might impact the quality of analysis. As heterogeneity can be assessed from different stakeholder perspectives with different methods, researchers should become more technically pronounced to increase confidence in the results and improve the ability of decision makers to act on the preference evidence.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Suzana Karim
- University of South Florida, 4202 E Fowler Ave, Tampa, FL, 33620, USA.
| | - Benjamin M Craig
- University of South Florida, 4202 E Fowler Ave, Tampa, FL, 33620, USA
| | - Caroline Vass
- RTI Health Solutions, Manchester, UK
- The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | | |
Collapse
|
3
|
Williams G, Kinchin I. The application of discrete choice experiments eliciting young peoples' preferences for healthcare: a systematic literature review. THE EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF HEALTH ECONOMICS : HEPAC : HEALTH ECONOMICS IN PREVENTION AND CARE 2022:10.1007/s10198-022-01528-9. [PMID: 36169764 DOI: 10.1007/s10198-022-01528-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/23/2021] [Accepted: 09/06/2022] [Indexed: 06/16/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES Understanding young people's preferences for healthcare is critical for reducing the negative effect of undesirable choices. This review aims to synthesise the evidence obtained from discrete choice experiments (DCEs) eliciting young people's preferences for healthcare interventions and service deliveries, specifically, to (1) examine the methodology, including a selection of attributes and levels, experimental design, estimation procedure and validity; (2) evaluate similarities, differences and rigour of designs to the general population DCEs; and, (3) compare the DCEs' application to the seven health priority areas defined by the World Health Organisation (WHO). METHODS A systematic review searching Medline, EconLIT, PsychINFO, Scopus, and Web of Science was performed up until May 2021. INCLUSION CRITERIA a DCE, eliciting young peoples' preferences (10-24 years of age), on a healthcare-related topic defined by WHO, peer-reviewed, full-text available in English. A bespoke checklist was used to assess the methodological quality of the included studies. RESULTS Eighteen DCE studies were included in the review, exploring interventions and service in sexual and reproductive health (n = 9; 50%), smoking cessation (n = 4; 22%), mental health (n = 1), nutrition (n = 1), unintentional injuries (n = 1), vaccination against severe but rare diseases (n = 1); and diabetes (n = 1). Compared to the general population, DCEs eliciting young people's preferences had a high proportion of monetary measures and a smaller number of choices per respondent with the overwhelming number of surveys using fractional factorial design. The majority of studies were of moderate quality (50-75% of the criteria met). CONCLUSIONS While identified DCEs touched on most health priority areas, the scope was limited. The conduct and reporting of DCEs with young people could be improved by including the state-of-the-art design, estimation procedures and analysis.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Galina Williams
- School of Business, Accounting and Law, CQUniversity, Brisbane, Australia.
| | - Irina Kinchin
- Centre for Health Policy and Management, School of Medicine, Trinity College Dublin, The University of Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Calabro' GE, Carini E, Tognetto A, Giacchetta I, Bonanno E, Mariani M, Ricciardi W, de Waure C. The Value(s) of Vaccination: Building the Scientific Evidence According to a Value-Based Healthcare Approach. Front Public Health 2022; 10:786662. [PMID: 35359753 PMCID: PMC8963736 DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.786662] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/30/2021] [Accepted: 01/31/2022] [Indexed: 02/04/2023] Open
Abstract
Objectives To provide a new value-based immunization approach collating the available scientific evidence on the topic. Methods Four value pillars (personal, allocative, technical, and societal) applied to vaccination field were investigated. A systematic literature review was performed querying three database from December 24th, 2010 to May 27th, 2020. It included studies on vaccine-preventable diseases (VPDs) that mentioned the term value in any part and which were conducted in advanced economies. An in-depth analysis was performed on studies addressing value as key element. Results Overall, 107 studies were considered. Approximately half of the studies addressed value as a key element but in most of cases (83.3%) only a single pillar was assessed. Furthermore, the majority of papers addressed the technical value by looking only at classical methods for economic assessment of vaccinations whereas very few dealt with societal and allocative pillars. Conclusions Estimating the vaccinations value is very complex, even though their usefulness is certain. The assessment of the whole value of vaccines and vaccinations is still limited to some domains and should encompass the wider impact on economic growth and societies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Giovanna Elisa Calabro'
- Section of Hygiene, University Department of Life Sciences and Public Health; Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Rome, Italy
- VIHTALI (Value In Health Technology and Academy for Leadership & Innovation), Spin-Off of Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy
| | - Elettra Carini
- Section of Hygiene, University Department of Life Sciences and Public Health; Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Rome, Italy
| | | | - Irene Giacchetta
- Department of Medicine and Surgery, University of Perugia, Perugia, Italy
| | - Ester Bonanno
- Department of Medicine and Surgery, University of Perugia, Perugia, Italy
| | - Marco Mariani
- Section of Hygiene, University Department of Life Sciences and Public Health; Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Rome, Italy
| | - Walter Ricciardi
- Section of Hygiene, University Department of Life Sciences and Public Health; Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Rome, Italy
| | - Chiara de Waure
- Department of Medicine and Surgery, University of Perugia, Perugia, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Diks ME, Hiligsmann M, van der Putten IM. Vaccine preferences driving vaccine-decision making of different target groups: a systematic review of choice-based experiments. BMC Infect Dis 2021; 21:879. [PMID: 34454441 PMCID: PMC8397865 DOI: 10.1186/s12879-021-06398-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 16] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/07/2020] [Accepted: 07/15/2021] [Indexed: 02/08/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Choice-based experiments have been increasingly used to elicit preferences for vaccines and vaccination programs. This study aims to systematically identify and examine choice-based experiments assessing (differences in) vaccine preferences of vaccinees, representatives and health advisors. METHODS Five electronic databases were searched on choice-based conjoint analysis studies or discrete choice experiments capturing vaccine preferences of children, adolescents, parents, adults and healthcare professionals for attributes of vaccines or vaccine settings up to September 2020. Data was extracted using a standardized form covering all important aspects of choice experiments. A quality assessment was used to assess the validity of studies. Attributes were categorized into outcome, process, cost and other. The importance of attributes was assessed by the frequency of reporting and statistical significance. Results were compared between high-quality studies and lower-quality studies. RESULTS A total of 42 studies were included, with the majority conducted in high-income countries after 2010 (resp. n = 34 and n = 37). Preferences of representatives were studied in nearly half of the studies (47.6%), followed by vaccinees (35.7%) and health advisors (9.5%). Sixteen high-quality studies passed the quality assessment. Outcome- and cost- related attributes such as vaccine effectiveness, vaccine risk, cost and protection duration were most often statistically significant across both target groups, with vaccine effectiveness being the most important. Risks associated with vaccination, such as side effects, were more often statistically significant in studies targeting vaccinees, while cost-related attributes were more often statistically significant in studies of representatives. Process-related attributes such as vaccine accessibility and time were least important across both target groups. CONCLUSION To our knowledge, this is the first systematic review in which vaccine preferences of different target groups were assessed and compared. The same attributes were most important for vaccine decisions of vaccinees and representatives, with only minor differences in level of evidence for vaccine risk and cost. Future research on vaccine preferences of health advisors and/or among target groups in low-resource settings would give insight into the generalizability of current findings.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Marilyn Emma Diks
- Faculty of Health Medicine and Life Sciences, Maastricht University, Universiteitssingel 40, 6229, Maastricht, Netherlands
| | - Mickael Hiligsmann
- Department of Health Services Research, Care and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI), Maastricht University, Duboisdomein 30, 6229, Maastricht, Netherlands
| | - Ingeborg Maria van der Putten
- Department of Health Services Research, Care and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI), Maastricht University, Duboisdomein 30, 6229, Maastricht, Netherlands.
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Sargazi N, Takian A, Yaseri M, Daroudi R, Ghanbari Motlagh A, Nahvijou A, Zendehdel K. Mothers' preferences and willingness-to-pay for human papillomavirus vaccines in Iran: A discrete choice experiment study. Prev Med Rep 2021; 23:101438. [PMID: 34189022 PMCID: PMC8220373 DOI: 10.1016/j.pmedr.2021.101438] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/17/2021] [Revised: 05/22/2021] [Accepted: 05/31/2021] [Indexed: 11/05/2022] Open
Abstract
The relative importance for serious side effects was the highest among all attributes. Mothers express more WTP for the quadrivalent vaccine compared to bivalent due to its protection against genital warts. Quadrivalent vaccination could be the most suitable candidate for implementation in the national immunization schedule.
This study aimed to identify mothers’ preferences and willingness-to-pay (WTP) for human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines (in this case, bivalent and quadrivalent) in Iran. We used a discrete choice experiment (DCE) method to present mothers with choices between two hypothetical profiles of vaccines, described by combinations of five attributes, each with two or three levels. We analyzed the DCE results using conditional logistic regression and measured WTP estimates for each attribute. Our response rate was 53.96%, while the completion rate for questioner was 93.57%. We identified protection against cervical cancer, protection against genital warts, protection duration, serious side effects, and cost to influence mothers’ preferences for HPV vaccination. The relative importance for serious side effects was the highest among all attributes. Mothers’ WTP for bivalent and quadrivalent HPV vaccines was in US $ −432 (US $1 = IRR 42,000) and US $ 380, respectively. Quadrivalent vaccination could be the most suitable candidate for implementing the national immunization schedule. The reason is that mothers express more WTP for the quadrivalent vaccine than bivalent due to its protection against genital warts.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nasrin Sargazi
- Department of Health Management, Policy and Economics, School of Public Health, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran (TUMS), Iran
| | - Amirhossein Takian
- Department of Health Management, Policy and Economics, School of Public Health, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran (TUMS), Iran.,Department of Global Health and Public Policy, School of Public Health, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.,Health Equity Research Center (HERC), Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
| | - Mehdi Yaseri
- Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
| | - Rajabali Daroudi
- Department of Health Management, Policy and Economics, School of Public Health, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran (TUMS), Iran
| | - Ali Ghanbari Motlagh
- Cancer Research Center, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.,Mortazavi (Jorjiani) Radiation Oncology Center, Imam Hossein Hospital, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
| | - Azin Nahvijou
- Cancer Research Center of Cancer Institute, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
| | - Kazem Zendehdel
- Cancer Research Center of Cancer Institute, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.,Cancer Biology Research Center, of Cancer Institute, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.,Breast Diseases Research Center, Cancer Institute of Iran, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Methods for Conducting Stated Preference Research with Children and Adolescents in Health: A Scoping Review of the Application of Discrete Choice Experiments. PATIENT-PATIENT CENTERED OUTCOMES RESEARCH 2021; 14:741-758. [PMID: 34008164 DOI: 10.1007/s40271-021-00519-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 04/12/2021] [Indexed: 10/21/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) are a common method used to describe and quantitatively assess preferences in health applications. Increasingly, DCEs have been used to elicit preferences from children and adolescents and generate evidence to inform policies affecting this population. OBJECTIVES The aim of this review was to summarize and describe the application of DCEs conducted with children and adolescents and describe author-reported age-specific considerations in design, implementation, and analysis. METHODS A scoping review was conducted using a 'pearl-growing' technique whereby the reference lists of existing systematic reviews of DCEs were used to identify potential studies conducted with children or adolescents as respondents published between 1990 and 2017. This list was supplemented with an updated electronic search using the same strategy as the initial reviews to identify studies from 2017 to 2020. RESULTS Of 480 studies identified, 19 were included; topics included vaccines (32%), drugs/medical devices (26%), treatment or health promotion interventions/programs (21%), warning labels on cigarettes/nicotine products (10%), and preferences for physical activity and healthy food choices (10%). The youngest reported age for independent DCE completion was 8 years. Approaches to assessing validity and reliability of choices were consistent with best practices for the conduct of DCEs. Reported age-specific considerations included use of visual aids, age-appropriate language, reducing task complexity and cognitive burden, and exploration of interpretation of willingness-to-pay. CONCLUSION The number of DCEs conducted with children and adolescents has increased in recent years. Detailed explanation of why reported age-specific considerations were necessary, how they could be used to interpret results, or to understand the appropriateness of this methodology for different age groups was limited. Despite a recognition of the need for special consideration when conducting DCEs in this population, the unique issues in the context of age-specific considerations are largely unexplored, and further research is required. Moving forward, stated preference research conducted with children and adolescents should report in more detail methods of recruitment, results of validity assessments, and provide specific reflection on the extent to which modeled results are consistent with expectations and underlying theory.
Collapse
|
8
|
Zhu S, Chang J, Hayat K, Li P, Ji W, Fang Y. Parental preferences for HPV vaccination in junior middle school girls in China: A discrete choice experiment. Vaccine 2020; 38:8310-8317. [DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2020.11.020] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/28/2020] [Revised: 08/27/2020] [Accepted: 11/06/2020] [Indexed: 12/11/2022]
|
9
|
Lack A, Hiligsmann M, Bloem P, Tünneßen M, Hutubessy R. Parent, provider and vaccinee preferences for HPV vaccination: A systematic review of discrete choice experiments. Vaccine 2020; 38:7226-7238. [PMID: 33023774 DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2020.08.078] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/29/2019] [Revised: 07/11/2020] [Accepted: 08/29/2020] [Indexed: 12/16/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES To systematically review, appraise and evaluate available evidence regarding discrete-choice experiments (DCEs) for the human papilloma virus (HPV) vaccination in order to support policymakers in making reasonable and effective vaccination program implementation decisions. METHODS A systematic literature review was conducted using the databases PubMed and Embase for DCEs in HPV up to May 2019. Extracted data was tabulated and two checklists were used for the quality appraisal of the included studies. All attributes were categorized in outcome, process or costs attributes and the relative importance of attributes was calculated using the range method. RESULTS Out of 164 identified studies, 12 met the inclusion criteria. Eight were from high income countries (HICs) and four from low and middle-income countries (LMICs). Five studies each examined vaccinee and parent preferences, while only two assessed the providers' preferences. The studies were rather heterogenous in terms of the populations investigated, the attributes included and the methodologic approach. Overall, outcome measures were the most prominent attributes and effectiveness consistently yielded high relative importance scores. But also process factors, such as the age at vaccination, played an important role for decision making. Discrepancies between HICs and LMICs were most prominent for cost attributes. CONCLUSION The heterogenous preferences this review elicited highlight the importance of context when making decisions grounded on consumer preferences. Especially the lack of evidence from LMICs, where the burden of cervical cancer is highest, is worrisome. In order to increase uptake, close vaccination gaps and reduce current inequities in (reproductive) healthcare, policy makers need to understand the features that drive individual vaccination decisions and adapt national and clinical guidelines accordingly. Future research therefore needs to focus on LMICs in order to elicit preferences of those most vulnerable populations.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Alina Lack
- Department for Immunization, Vaccination and Biologicals, WHO Avenue Appia 20, 1202 Geneva, Switzerland.
| | - Mickael Hiligsmann
- Department of Health Services Research, CAPHRI Care and Public Health Research Institute, Maastricht University, Duboisdomein 30, 6229 Maastricht, Netherlands
| | - Paul Bloem
- Department for Immunization, Vaccination and Biologicals, WHO Avenue Appia 20, 1202 Geneva, Switzerland
| | - Maike Tünneßen
- Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Maastricht University, Universiteitssingel 40, 6229 Maastricht, Netherlands
| | - Raymond Hutubessy
- Department for Immunization, Vaccination and Biologicals, WHO Avenue Appia 20, 1202 Geneva, Switzerland.
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Fu C, wei Z, Zhu F, Pei S, Li S, Zhang L, Sun X, Wu Y, Liu P, Jit M. Acceptance of and preference for COVID-19 vaccination in healthcare workers: a comparative analysis and discrete choice experiment.. [PMID: 0 DOI: 10.1101/2020.04.09.20060103] [Citation(s) in RCA: 76] [Impact Index Per Article: 19.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 05/17/2023]
Abstract
AbstractBackgroundA major obstacle to successful coronavirus disease (COVID-19) vaccine rollout is vaccine hesitancy. Acceptance of and preferences for COVID-19 vaccination among healthcare workers (HCWs) is critical, because they are a key target group for vaccination programs, and they are also highly influential to vaccine uptake in the wider population. This study sought to comparatively determine the acceptance of and preference for COVID-19 vaccination among HCWs and the general population.MethodsAn Internet-based, region-stratified discrete-choice experiment was conducted among 352 HCWs and 189 general population respondents recruited in March 2020 from 26 Chinese provinces. We accessed knowledge of disease, attitude towards and acceptance of COVID-19 vaccination. Several attributes (related to COVID-19 disease, COVID-19 vaccination and one social acceptance) were identified as key determinants of vaccine acceptance.ResultsHCWs had a more in-depth understanding of COVID-19 and showed a higher willingness to accept COVID-19 vaccines with lower effectiveness and/or more severe adverse effects compared to the general population. 76.4% of HCWs (vs 72.5% of the general population) expressed willingness to receive vaccination (χ2=2.904, p=0.234). High levels of willingness to accept influenza (65.3%) and pneumococcal (55.7%) vaccination were also seen in HCWs. Future COVID-19 disease incidence (OR: 4.367, 95% CI 3.721–5.126), decisions about vaccination among social contacts of respondents (OR 0.398, 95% CI 0.339–0.467), and infection risk >30% (OR 2.706, 95% CI 1.776–2.425) significantly increased the probability of vaccination acceptance in HCWs.ConclusionMulti-component interventions to address the key determinants of hesitancy in both HCWs and in the general population should be considered for COVID-19 vaccination programs.
Collapse
|
11
|
Lavelle TA, Messonnier M, Stokley S, Kim D, Ramakrishnan A, Gebremariam A, Simon NJE, Rose AM, Prosser LA. Use of a choice survey to identify adult, adolescent and parent preferences for vaccination in the United States. J Patient Rep Outcomes 2019; 3:51. [PMID: 31359289 PMCID: PMC6663948 DOI: 10.1186/s41687-019-0135-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/07/2018] [Accepted: 06/19/2019] [Indexed: 01/03/2023] Open
Abstract
Background Adult and adolescent vaccination rates are far below coverage targets in the United States. Our objective was to identify the most influential factors related to vaccine uptake among adults, adolescents, and parents of adolescents (parents) in the United States. Methods We used a fractional factorial design to create a binary choice survey to evaluate preferences for vaccination. The national survey was fielded to a sample of adults, adolescents ages 13–17 years, and parents, using a national probability-based online research panel in November 2015. Respondents were presented with 5 profiles of a hypothetical vaccine and asked in a series of questions whether they would accept each vaccine. We analyzed the binary choice data using logistic regression in STATA v13 (College Station, TX) to calculate the odds that a participant would choose to accept the vaccine. Results We received completed responses from 334 (51%) of 652 adults, 316 (21%) of 1516 adolescents, and 339 (33%) of 1030 parents. Respondents were generally representative of the U.S. population. Vaccine effectiveness was the most influential factor in the choice to vaccinate for all groups. Other most influential factors were primary care provider (PCP) recommendation and the out-of-pocket cost of the vaccine. Other factors such as risk of illness, risk of vaccine side effects, vaccination location, and time for vaccination were not important in the decision to get vaccinated. Conclusions Adults, adolescents, and parents are most sensitive to vaccine effectiveness, PCP recommendation, and out-of-pocket cost for vaccination in their decision to get vaccinated. Strong PCP recommendations that focus on vaccine effectiveness and health care policies that minimize out-of-pocket costs for vaccinations may increase vaccine uptake by adults and adolescents. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s41687-019-0135-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Tara A Lavelle
- Center for the Evaluation of Value and Risk in Health (CEVR), Institute for Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies, Tufts Medical Center, 800 Washington St, Boston, MA, 02111, USA.
| | - Mark Messonnier
- National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road, Atlanta, GA, 30329, USA
| | - Shannon Stokley
- National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road, Atlanta, GA, 30329, USA
| | - David Kim
- National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road, Atlanta, GA, 30329, USA
| | | | - Achamyeleh Gebremariam
- Susan B. Meister Child Health Evaluation and Research Center, Department of Pediatrics, Medical School, University of Michigan, 300 North Ingalls St, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109, USA
| | - Norma-Jean E Simon
- Ann and Robert H. Lurie Children's Hospital, 225 East Chicago Ave, Chicago, IL, 60611, USA
| | - Angela M Rose
- Susan B. Meister Child Health Evaluation and Research Center, Department of Pediatrics, Medical School, University of Michigan, 300 North Ingalls St, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109, USA
| | - Lisa A Prosser
- Susan B. Meister Child Health Evaluation and Research Center, Department of Pediatrics, Medical School, University of Michigan, 300 North Ingalls St, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109, USA.,Department of Health Management and Policy, School of Public Health, University of Michigan, 1415 Washington Heights, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109, USA
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Barber S, Bekker H, Marti J, Pavitt S, Khambay B, Meads D. Development of a Discrete-Choice Experiment (DCE) to Elicit Adolescent and Parent Preferences for Hypodontia Treatment. PATIENT-PATIENT CENTERED OUTCOMES RESEARCH 2019; 12:137-148. [PMID: 30367434 PMCID: PMC6335368 DOI: 10.1007/s40271-018-0338-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 24] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/20/2022]
Abstract
Objective Our objective was to develop and test a discrete-choice experiment (DCE) survey to elicit adolescent and parent preferences for dental care for hypodontia (a developmental condition where one or more teeth fail to develop). Methods This was a mixed-methods study. Participants were adolescents (aged 12–16 years) with hypodontia and their parents and the dentists providing hypodontia care. Stage one entailed attribute development, as follows. (1) Attribute identification: systematic review of hypodontia literature; interviews with adolescents with hypodontia (n = 8) and parents (n = 8); observation of hypodontia clinical consultations (n = 5); environmental scan of hypodontia patient information resources (n = 30); and systematic analysis of social media posts (n = 176). (2) Attribute selection: stakeholder consultation to develop items for a questionnaire; rating and ranking questionnaire for adolescents with hypodontia and parents (n = 18); further stakeholder consultation. Stage two involved the development of the DCE survey, and stage three included the pre-testing using cognitive interviews with adolescents (n = 12) and parents (n = 8) to assess face and content validity. Results The attribute long list included 27 attributes focusing on service delivery and treatment outcome, from which seven ‘important’ attributes were selected for pre-testing. Cognitive interviewing suggested adolescents found the DCE choice tasks challenging to understand; the survey was modified to enhance its acceptability. One attribute was excluded as it showed poor validity with adolescents. Pre-testing suggested DCE choice tasks encouraged thinking and discussion about preferences for treatment. Conclusions Including the target respondent group in all stages of DCE development ensured the final DCE survey was valid and acceptable. DCE methods appear to be a useful tool for exploring joint decision making alongside conventional preference elicitation. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1007/s40271-018-0338-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sophy Barber
- Orthodontic Department, Leeds Dental Institute, Clarendon Way, Leeds, LS2 9LU UK
| | - Hilary Bekker
- Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, Level 10 Worsley Building, Clarendon Way, Leeds, LS2 9TJ UK
| | - Joachim Marti
- Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine (IUMSP), Université de Lausanne-CHUV, Route de la Corniche 10, 1010 Lausanne, Switzerland
| | - Sue Pavitt
- School of Dentistry, Level 6 Worsley Building, Clarendon Way, Leeds, LS2 9LU UK
| | - Balvinder Khambay
- School of Dentistry, University of Birmingham, 5 Mill Pool Way, Birmingham, B5 7EG UK
| | - David Meads
- Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, Level 11 Worsley Building, Clarendon Way, Leeds, LS2 9TJ UK
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Soekhai V, de Bekker-Grob EW, Ellis AR, Vass CM. Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: Past, Present and Future. PHARMACOECONOMICS 2019; 37:201-226. [PMID: 30392040 PMCID: PMC6386055 DOI: 10.1007/s40273-018-0734-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 393] [Impact Index Per Article: 78.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 05/03/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) are increasingly advocated as a way to quantify preferences for health. However, increasing support does not necessarily result in increasing quality. Although specific reviews have been conducted in certain contexts, there exists no recent description of the general state of the science of health-related DCEs. The aim of this paper was to update prior reviews (1990-2012), to identify all health-related DCEs and to provide a description of trends, current practice and future challenges. METHODS A systematic literature review was conducted to identify health-related empirical DCEs published between 2013 and 2017. The search strategy and data extraction replicated prior reviews to allow the reporting of trends, although additional extraction fields were incorporated. RESULTS Of the 7877 abstracts generated, 301 studies met the inclusion criteria and underwent data extraction. In general, the total number of DCEs per year continued to increase, with broader areas of application and increased geographic scope. Studies reported using more sophisticated designs (e.g. D-efficient) with associated software (e.g. Ngene). The trend towards using more sophisticated econometric models also continued. However, many studies presented sophisticated methods with insufficient detail. Qualitative research methods continued to be a popular approach for identifying attributes and levels. CONCLUSIONS The use of empirical DCEs in health economics continues to grow. However, inadequate reporting of methodological details inhibits quality assessment. This may reduce decision-makers' confidence in results and their ability to act on the findings. How and when to integrate health-related DCE outcomes into decision-making remains an important area for future research.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Vikas Soekhai
- Section of Health Technology Assessment (HTA) and Erasmus Choice Modelling Centre (ECMC), Erasmus School of Health Policy & Management (ESHPM), Erasmus University Rotterdam (EUR), P.O. Box 1738, Rotterdam, 3000 DR The Netherlands
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, P.O. Box 2040, Rotterdam, 3000 CA The Netherlands
| | - Esther W. de Bekker-Grob
- Section of Health Technology Assessment (HTA) and Erasmus Choice Modelling Centre (ECMC), Erasmus School of Health Policy & Management (ESHPM), Erasmus University Rotterdam (EUR), P.O. Box 1738, Rotterdam, 3000 DR The Netherlands
| | - Alan R. Ellis
- Department of Social Work, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC USA
| | - Caroline M. Vass
- Manchester Centre for Health Economics, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Mansfield C, Ekwueme DU, Tangka FKL, Brown DS, Smith JL, Guy GP, Li C, Hauber B. Colorectal Cancer Screening: Preferences, Past Behavior, and Future Intentions. THE PATIENT 2018; 11:599-611. [PMID: 29740804 PMCID: PMC6226356 DOI: 10.1007/s40271-018-0308-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 20] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/16/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Screening rates for colorectal cancer are below the Healthy People 2020 goal. There are several colorectal cancer screening tests that differ in terms of accuracy, recommended frequency, and administration. In this article, we compare how a set of personal characteristics correlates with preferences for colorectal cancer screening test attributes, past colorectal cancer screening behavior, and future colorectal cancer screening intentions. METHODS We conducted a discrete-choice experiment survey to assess relative preferences for attributes of colorectal cancer screening tests among adults aged 50-75 years in USA. We used a latent class logit model to identify classes of preferences and calculated willingness to pay for changes in test attributes. A set of personal characteristics were included in the latent class analysis and analyses of self-reported past screening behavior and self-assessed likelihood of future colorectal cancer screening. RESULTS Latent class analysis identified three types of respondents. Class 1 valued test accuracy, class 2 valued removing polyps and avoiding discomfort, and class 3 valued cost. Having had a prior colonoscopy and a higher income were predictors of the likelihood of future screening and membership in classes 1 and 2. Health insurance and a self-reported higher risk of developing colorectal cancer were associated with prior screening and higher future screening intentions, but not class membership. CONCLUSION We identified distinct classes of preferences focusing on different test features and personal characteristics associated with reported behavior and intentions. Healthcare providers should engage in a careful assessment of patient preferences when recommending colorectal cancer test options to encourage colorectal cancer screening uptake.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Carol Mansfield
- RTI Health Solutions, RTI International, 200 Park Offices Drive, PO Box 12194, Research Triangle Park, NC, 27709-2194, USA.
| | - Donatus U Ekwueme
- Division of Cancer Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA
| | - Florence K L Tangka
- Division of Cancer Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA
| | - Derek S Brown
- Brown School, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, USA
| | - Judith Lee Smith
- Division of Cancer Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA
| | - Gery P Guy
- Division of Cancer Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA
| | - Chunyu Li
- Division of Global HIV and TB, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA
| | - Brett Hauber
- RTI Health Solutions, RTI International, 200 Park Offices Drive, PO Box 12194, Research Triangle Park, NC, 27709-2194, USA
| |
Collapse
|
15
|
Individual Preferences for Child and Adolescent Vaccine Attributes: A Systematic Review of the Stated Preference Literature. PATIENT-PATIENT CENTERED OUTCOMES RESEARCH 2018; 10:687-700. [PMID: 28474295 DOI: 10.1007/s40271-017-0244-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 26] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/16/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Discrete choice experiments are increasingly used to assess preferences for vaccines and vaccine service delivery. OBJECTIVES To synthesize and critically assess the application of discrete choice experiments in childhood/adolescent vaccines, to describe how discrete choice experiments have been applied to understand preferences, and to evaluate the use of discrete choice experiment data to inform estimates of vaccine uptake. METHODS We conducted a systematic review of six electronic databases. Included studies were discrete choice experiments and conjoint analyses published from 2000 to 2016 related to childhood/adolescent vaccines where respondents were parents, children/adolescents, or service providers. Validity assessment was used to assess study quality and risk of bias. RESULTS In total, 27 articles were included, representing 21 different studies. A majority of articles were published between 2011 and 2016. Vaccines studied included human papillomavirus (24%), influenza (19%), meningococcal vaccines (14%), childhood vaccines (14%), hypothetical vaccines (10%), hepatitis B (5%), and diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, hepatitis B, poliomyelitis, and Haemophilus influenzae type b (5%). Most studies assessed parent preferences (67%). The most common attributes were risk (24%), degree/duration of protection (21%), and cost (15%). Commonly reported outcome measures were estimates of uptake (33%), willingness-to-pay (22%), and other marginal rates of substitution (14%). Validity assessments yielded high scores overall. Areas of weakness included low response rates, inefficient experimental design, and failure to conduct formative qualitative work and a pilot of the discrete choice experiment. CONCLUSION This is the first systematic review of childhood/adolescent vaccine-related discrete choice experiments. In future, special attention should be paid to ensuring that choice context and discrete choice experiment design are compatible to generate reliable estimates of uptake.
Collapse
|
16
|
Zhou M, Thayer WM, Bridges JFP. Using Latent Class Analysis to Model Preference Heterogeneity in Health: A Systematic Review. PHARMACOECONOMICS 2018; 36:175-187. [PMID: 28975582 DOI: 10.1007/s40273-017-0575-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 77] [Impact Index Per Article: 12.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/07/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Latent class analysis (LCA) has been increasingly used to explore preference heterogeneity, but the literature has not been systematically explored and hence best practices are not understood. OBJECTIVE We sought to document all applications of LCA in the stated-preference literature in health and to inform future studies by identifying current norms in published applications. METHODS We conducted a systematic review of the MEDLINE, EMBASE, EconLit, Web of Science, and PsycINFO databases. We included stated-preference studies that used LCA to explore preference heterogeneity in healthcare or public health. Two co-authors independently evaluated titles, abstracts, and full-text articles. Abstracted key outcomes included segmentation methods, preference elicitation methods, number of attributes and levels, sample size, model selection criteria, number of classes reported, and hypotheses tests. Study data quality and validity were assessed with the Purpose, Respondents, Explanation, Findings, and Significance (PREFS) quality checklist. RESULTS We identified 2560 titles, 99 of which met the inclusion criteria for the review. Two-thirds of the studies focused on the preferences of patients and the general population. In total, 80% of the studies used discrete choice experiments. Studies used between three and 20 attributes, most commonly four to six. Sample size in LCAs ranged from 47 to 2068, with one-third between 100 and 300. Over 90% of the studies used latent class logit models for segmentation. Bayesian information criterion (BIC), Akaike information criterion (AIC), and log-likelihood (LL) were commonly used for model selection, and class size and interpretability were also considered in some studies. About 80% of studies reported two to three classes. The number of classes reported was not correlated with any study characteristics or study population characteristics (p > 0.05). Only 30% of the studies reported using statistical tests to detect significant variations in preferences between classes. Less than half of the studies reported that individual characteristics were included in the segmentation models, and 30% reported that post-estimation analyses were conducted to examine class characteristics. While a higher percentage of studies discussed clinical implications of the segmentation results, an increasing number of studies proposed policy recommendations based on segmentation results since 2010. CONCLUSIONS LCA is increasingly used to study preference heterogeneity in health and support decision-making. However, there is little consensus on best practices as its application in health is relatively new. With an increasing demand to study preference heterogeneity, guidance is needed to improve the quality of applications of segmentation methods in health to support policy development and clinical practice.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mo Zhou
- Department of Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, 624 N. Broadway, Room 690, Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA.
| | - Winter Maxwell Thayer
- Department of Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, 624 N. Broadway, Room 690, Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA
| | - John F P Bridges
- Department of Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, 624 N. Broadway, Room 690, Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA
| |
Collapse
|
17
|
German travelers' preferences for travel vaccines assessed by a discrete choice experiment. Vaccine 2018; 36:969-978. [PMID: 29338877 DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2018.01.004] [Citation(s) in RCA: 15] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/24/2017] [Revised: 12/22/2017] [Accepted: 01/04/2018] [Indexed: 11/20/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Many travelers to regions with endemic infectious diseases do not follow health authorities' recommendations regarding vaccination against vaccine-preventable infectious diseases, before traveling. The determinants of individual travelers' decisions to vaccinate before traveling are largely unknown. This study aimed to provide this information using a discrete choice experiment (DCE) administered to four types of German travelers: (1) business travelers; (2) travelers visiting friends and relatives (VFR); (3) leisure travelers; and (4) backpackers. METHODS A DCE survey was developed, pretested and administered online. It included a series of choice questions in which respondents chose between two hypothetical vaccines, each characterized by four disease attributes with varying levels describing the of risk, health impact, curability and transmissibility of the disease they would prevent (described with four disease attributes with varying levels of risk, health impact, curability and transmissibility), and varying levels of four vaccine attributes (duration of protection, number of doses required, time required for vaccination, and vaccine cost). A random-parameters logit model was used to estimate the importance weights each traveler type placed on the various attribute levels. These weights were used to calculate mean monetary equivalents (MMEs) of changes in each attribute (holding all others constant) and of hypothetical disease-vaccine combinations. RESULTS All traveler types' choices indicated that they attached the greatest importance to the risk and health impact of disease and to the vaccine cost whereas the other disease and vaccine attributes were less important for their decisions about travel vaccines. An option of not choosing any of the vaccine-pairs presented was rarely selected indicating that travelers' generally prefer to be vaccinated rather than not. The MMEs of changes in vaccine attributes indicated a very high variability between the individual travelers within each type. CONCLUSIONS The travelers' responses indicated strong preferences for selecting vaccination rather than opting out of vaccination, and disease risk, health impact and vaccine cost were the most important features for vaccine choice.
Collapse
|
18
|
Wang B, Chen G, Ratcliffe J, Afzali HHA, Giles L, Marshall H. Adolescent values for immunisation programs in Australia: A discrete choice experiment. PLoS One 2017; 12:e0181073. [PMID: 28746348 PMCID: PMC5528895 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0181073] [Citation(s) in RCA: 17] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/24/2016] [Accepted: 06/26/2017] [Indexed: 01/19/2023] Open
Abstract
Objectives The importance of adolescent engagement in health decisions and public health programs such as immunisation is becoming increasingly recognised. Understanding adolescent preferences and further identifying barriers and facilitators for immunisation acceptance is critical to the success of adolescent immunisation programs. This study applied a discrete choice experiment (DCE) to assess vaccination preferences in adolescents. Methods This study was conducted as a cross-sectional, national online survey in Australian adolescents. The DCE survey evaluated adolescent vaccination preferences. Six attributes were assessed including disease severity, target for protection, price, location of vaccination provision, potential side effects and vaccine delivery method. A mixed logit model was used to analyse DCE data. Results This survey was conducted between December 2014 and January 2015. Of 800 adolescents aged 15 to 19 years, stronger preferences were observed overall for: vaccination in the case of a life threatening illness (p<0.001), lower price vaccinations (p<0.001), mild but common side effects (p = 0.004), delivery via a skin patch (p<0.001) and being administered by a family practitioner (p<0.001). Participants suggested that they and their families would be willing to pay AU$394.28 (95%CI: AU$348.40 to AU$446.92) more for a vaccine targeting a life threatening illness than a mild-moderate illness, AU$37.94 (95%CI: AU$19.22 to AU$57.39) more for being vaccinated at a family practitioner clinic than a council immunisation clinic, AU$23.01 (95%CI: AU$7.12 to AU$39.24) more for common but mild and resolving side effects compared to rare but serious side effects, and AU$51.80 (95%CI: AU$30.42 to AU$73.70) more for delivery via a skin patch than injection. Conclusions Consideration of adolescent preferences may result in improved acceptance of, engagement in and uptake of immunisation programs targeted for this age group.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Bing Wang
- The Robinson Research Institute, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
- Adelaide Medical School, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
- School of Public Health, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
- Vaccinology and Immunology Research Trials Unit (VIRTU), Women's and Children's Hospital, North Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
- * E-mail:
| | - Gang Chen
- Centre for Health Economics, Monash Business School, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia
| | - Julie Ratcliffe
- Institute for Choice, UniSA Business School, University of South Australia, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
| | | | - Lynne Giles
- The Robinson Research Institute, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
- School of Public Health, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
| | - Helen Marshall
- The Robinson Research Institute, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
- Adelaide Medical School, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
- School of Public Health, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
- Vaccinology and Immunology Research Trials Unit (VIRTU), Women's and Children's Hospital, North Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
19
|
Fraenkel L, Lim J, Garcia-Tsao G, Reyna V, Monto A, Bridges JFP. Variation in Treatment Priorities for Chronic Hepatitis C: A Latent Class Analysis. PATIENT-PATIENT CENTERED OUTCOMES RESEARCH 2017; 9:241-9. [PMID: 26518200 DOI: 10.1007/s40271-015-0147-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/17/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Data describing patients' priorities, or main concerns, are essential to inform important decisions in healthcare, including treatment planning, diagnostic testing, and the development of programs to improve access and delivery of care. To date, the majority of studies performed does not account for variability in patients' priorities, and as a consequence may not effectively inform end users. The objective of this study was to examine the value of segmentation analysis as a method to illustrate variability in priorities for treatment of chronic hepatitis C (HCV). METHODS We elicited patients' main concerns when considering antiviral therapy for HCV using a Best-Worst Scaling experiment (Case 1) with ten objects. Latent class analysis was used to estimate part-worth utilities and the probability that each respondent belongs to each segment. RESULTS In the aggregate, subjects (N = 162) had three main concerns: (1) not being cured; (2) experiencing a lot of side effects; and (3) developing viral resistance to therapy. Segmentation into two groups demonstrated that both groups prioritized the likelihood of cure and coping with side effects, but that only one group (n = 78) was concerned about developing viral resistance to therapy, while subjects in the second group (n = 84) prioritized being able to keep up with their responsibilities. Further segmentation revealed distinct clusters of patients with unique priorities. CONCLUSIONS Patients' priorities vary significantly. Preference studies should consider including methods to determine whether distinct clusters of priorities and/or concerns exist in order to accurately inform end users' decision making.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Liana Fraenkel
- VA Connecticut Health Care System, Yale University School of Medicine, 300 Cedar ST, TAC Bldg, RM #525, PO Box 208031, New Haven, CT, USA.
| | - Joseph Lim
- VA Connecticut Health Care System, Yale University School of Medicine, 300 Cedar ST, TAC Bldg, RM #525, PO Box 208031, New Haven, CT, USA
| | - Guadalupe Garcia-Tsao
- VA Connecticut Health Care System, Yale University School of Medicine, 300 Cedar ST, TAC Bldg, RM #525, PO Box 208031, New Haven, CT, USA
| | - Valerie Reyna
- Department of Human Development and Psychology, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA
| | - Alexander Monto
- Section of Digestive Diseases, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA
| | - John F P Bridges
- Department of Health Policy and Management, John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA
| |
Collapse
|
20
|
Allaire BT, Brown DS, Wiener JM. Who Wants Long-Term Care Insurance? A Stated Preference Survey of Attitudes, Beliefs, and Characteristics. INQUIRY: The Journal of Health Care Organization, Provision, and Financing 2016; 53:53/0/0046958016663728. [PMID: 27530238 PMCID: PMC5812045 DOI: 10.1177/0046958016663728] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/22/2016] [Accepted: 07/18/2016] [Indexed: 11/15/2022]
Abstract
Approximately half of people turning 65 years between 2015 and 2019 are projected to need long-term support and services. Yet the long-term care insurance (LTCI) market is depressed, with only 7.4 million people owning policies. The objective of this study was to provide an analysis of potential LTCI purchasers. We investigate (1) who wants to purchase LTCI, (2) what are the attitudes and beliefs among those who have a preference for LTCI, and (3) who would prefer a law mandating the purchase of LTCI and how that view relates to willingness to purchase LTC. We combine a discrete choice experiment with a survey on attitudes toward LTCI. We estimate odds ratio for choosing a plan based on sociodemographic characteristics, attitudes, and beliefs. Our sample consists of a population of 12 936 people who completed an Internet panel survey. Female respondents were substantially less likely to choose an LTCI plan (OR = 0.74). Income and assets over $100 000 were strong predictors of LTCI uptake (OR = 1.27 and OR = 1.48, respectively). Having adult children live close by was not associated with preference for LTCI. People who support almost any government intervention are more likely to purchase private insurance (OR = 1.12-1.33). Minorities expressed a preference for mandatory enrollment relative to whites. There is a relationship between attitudes toward long-term care financing reform and preference for LTCI, but it is not limited to supporters of private sector initiatives. While support for mandatory LTCI is low overall, it is strongest among racial/ethnic minorities and people with health problems, who potentially have the most to gain.
Collapse
|