1
|
Norwood P, Beasley M, Stevens M, Hollick R, Macfarlane G, McNamee P. Patient preferences for models of care for fibromyalgia: A discrete choice experiment. PLoS One 2024; 19:e0305030. [PMID: 38905171 PMCID: PMC11192391 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0305030] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/18/2023] [Accepted: 05/23/2024] [Indexed: 06/23/2024] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Fibromyalgia is a common reason for referral to a rheumatologist and is a centralised pain state with symptoms beginning in adolescence/early adulthood and manifests as pain throughout the body, fatigue and cognitive dysfunction. Whilst there is considerable evidence on effective treatments, diagnosis and management are complex. There is almost no evidence on how to organise health services to deliver recommended therapies. The aim of the current study was to understand patient preferences for different features of healthcare services for fibromyalgia. METHODOLOGY We use the Discrete Choice Experiment Method (DCE), a choice-based survey that quantifies preferences for attributes of goods, services or policy interventions, to elicit preferences in relation to alternative models of care for people with fibromyalgia. In this study, attributes describe different models of care for fibromyalgia. We based attributes and levels on earlier phases of the PACFiND project and a literature review on fibromyalgia models of care. The final analysis sample consisted of 518 respondents who completed the survey in full. RESULTS The final analysis sample consisted of 518 respondents ((patients living in the UK, over 18 years old, with a diagnosis of fibromyalgia), who completed the survey in full. The model of care most preferred is one characterised by earlier diagnosis and ongoing management by a Rheumatologist, via Face-to-face or Phone/video call appointments, with a stronger preference for the latter mode of support. The most preferred treatment was Medication, followed by Physical Therapy, with the least preferred being Talking Therapy. Relative to a Waiting Time for treatment of 6 months, respondents would prefer a lower Waiting Time of 3 months and dislike waiting 12 months for treatment. Respondents showed willingness to receive Ongoing Help and Advice by a Nurse Practitioner or a GP, instead of a Specialist Rheumatologist, provided they were compensated by other changes in the model of care. CONCLUSION This study has found that, although respondents express a preference for specialist care, provided by a Rheumatologist, they may be willing to trade-off this preference against other features within a model of care. This willingness to accept a different skill-mix (e.g., appointments with a GP or a Nurse Practitioner) has important implications for practice and policy, as this is a more feasible option in settings where the availability of specialist care is highly constrained.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Patrícia Norwood
- Health Economics Research Unit, School of Medicine, Medical Sciences and Nutrition University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, United Kingdom
| | - Marcus Beasley
- Aberdeen Centre for Arthritis and Musculoskeletal Health (Epidemiology Group), School of Medicine, Medical Sciences and Nutrition, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, United Kingdom
| | - Martin Stevens
- Aberdeen Centre for Arthritis and Musculoskeletal Health (Epidemiology Group), School of Medicine, Medical Sciences and Nutrition, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, United Kingdom
| | - Rosemary Hollick
- Aberdeen Centre for Arthritis and Musculoskeletal Health (Epidemiology Group), School of Medicine, Medical Sciences and Nutrition, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, United Kingdom
| | - Gary Macfarlane
- Aberdeen Centre for Arthritis and Musculoskeletal Health (Epidemiology Group), School of Medicine, Medical Sciences and Nutrition, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, United Kingdom
| | - Paul McNamee
- Health Economics Research Unit, School of Medicine, Medical Sciences and Nutrition University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, United Kingdom
| | | |
Collapse
|
2
|
Nicolet A, Perraudin C, Krucien N, Wagner J, Peytremann-Bridevaux I, Marti J. Preferences of older adults for healthcare models designed to improve care coordination: evidence from Western Switzerland. Health Policy 2023; 132:104819. [PMID: 37060718 DOI: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2023.104819] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/14/2022] [Revised: 12/02/2022] [Accepted: 04/04/2023] [Indexed: 04/08/2023]
Abstract
Implementing innovations in care delivery in Switzerland is challenging due to the fragmented nature of the system and the specificities of the political process (i.e., direct democracy, decentralized decision-making). In this context, it is particularly important to account for population preferences when designing policies. We designed a discrete choice experiment to study population preferences for coordination-improving care models. Specifically, we assessed the relative importance of model characteristics (i.e., insurance premium, presence of care coordinator, access to specialists, use of EMR, cost-sharing for chronic patients, incentives for informal care), and predicted uptake under different policy scenarios. We accounted for heterogeneity in preferences for the status quo option using an error component logit model. Respondents attached the highest importance to the price attribute (i.e. insurance premium) (0.31, CI: 0.27- 0.36) and to the presence of a care coordinator (0.27, CI: 0.23 - 0.31). Policy scenarios showed for instance that gatekeeping would be preferred to free access to specialists if the model includes a GP or an interprofessional team as a care coordinator. Although attachment to the status quo is high in the studied population, there are potential ways to improve acceptance of alternative care models by implementation of positively valued innovations.
Collapse
|
3
|
Patient and Public Preferences for Coordinated Care in Switzerland: Development of a Discrete Choice Experiment. THE PATIENT - PATIENT-CENTERED OUTCOMES RESEARCH 2022; 15:485-496. [PMID: 35067858 PMCID: PMC9197802 DOI: 10.1007/s40271-021-00568-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 12/12/2021] [Indexed: 11/10/2022]
Abstract
Objective Our objective was to develop and test a discrete choice experiment (DCE) eliciting public and patient preferences for better-coordinated care in Switzerland. Methods We applied a multistage mixed-methods procedure using qualitative and quantitative approaches. First, to identify attributes, we performed a review of the DCE literature in healthcare with a focus on chronic care. Next, attribute selection involved stakeholders (N = 7) from various healthcare sectors to select the most relevant and actionable attributes, followed by three organized focus groups involving the general public and patients (N = 21) to verify the selection and the clarity of the DCE tasks and explanations. Finally, we conducted an online pilot in the target population to test the survey and obtain priors for a final six tested attributes to refine the final design of the experiment. Results After identifying an initial 33 attributes, a final list of six attributes was selected following stakeholder involvement and the three focus groups involving the target population. At the online pilot-testing stage with 301 participants, the majority of respondents found the DCE choice tasks socially relevant for Switzerland but challenging. The quality of the answers was relatively high. Most attributes had signs matching those in the literature and focus group discussions. Conclusion This article will be useful to researchers designing DCEs from a broad health policy perspective. The multistage approach involving a range of stakeholders was essential for the development of a DCE that is relevant for policy makers and well-accepted by the general public and patients. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40271-021-00568-2.
Collapse
|
4
|
Zhu J, Li J, Zhang Z, Li H. Patients' choice and preference for common disease diagnosis and diabetes care: A discrete choice experiment. Int J Health Plann Manage 2019; 34:e1544-e1555. [PMID: 31270879 DOI: 10.1002/hpm.2841] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/09/2019] [Revised: 05/23/2019] [Accepted: 05/24/2019] [Indexed: 11/10/2022] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To examine the impact of policy incentives on patient's choice of health-care providers for primary care and to capture the preferences for general practitioner (GP) care. STUDY DESIGN Discrete choice experiment. METHODS A random sample of 704 adults and of 181 diabetics were independently surveyed to elicit patients' preferences for common disease diagnosis and diabetes care. Mixed logit regression was used for the analysis. RESULTS On average, the most valued attribute in GP care are the organizational factors related to whether the provider has sufficient medicine and equipment to provide capable primary care service. Policy incentives, such as reducing waiting time, providing prior expert access, and increasing Medicare reimbursement, can facilitate the utilization of the GP system. Significant preference heterogeneity was identified; specifically, patient preferences significantly differ with regard to demand for common disease diagnosis and diabetes care. CONCLUSION The identification of the preferences of specific groups in regard to GP care is an organizational and political imperative. Policy incentives are useful tools to guide patients' health care seeking behavior. To change the perceptions of Chinese patients with regard to health care, policy makers should consider the heterogeneous responses of residents to policy incentives and focus their efforts on key cohorts.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jingrong Zhu
- School of Management and Economics, Beijing Institute of Technology, Beijing, China.,College of Health and Human Development, Pennsylvania State University, State College, Pennsylvania, USA
| | - Jinlin Li
- School of Management and Economics, Beijing Institute of Technology, Beijing, China
| | - Zengbo Zhang
- School of Management and Economics, Beijing Institute of Technology, Beijing, China
| | - Hao Li
- School of Management and Economics, Beijing Institute of Technology, Beijing, China
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Salisbury C, Man MS, Chaplin K, Mann C, Bower P, Brookes S, Duncan P, Fitzpatrick B, Gardner C, Gaunt DM, Guthrie B, Hollinghurst S, Kadir B, Lee V, McLeod J, Mercer SW, Moffat KR, Moody E, Rafi I, Robinson R, Shaw A, Thorn J. A patient-centred intervention to improve the management of multimorbidity in general practice: the 3D RCT. HEALTH SERVICES AND DELIVERY RESEARCH 2019. [DOI: 10.3310/hsdr07050] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/22/2022] Open
Abstract
Background
People with multimorbidity experience impaired quality of life, poor health and a burden from treatment. Their care is often disease-focused rather than patient-centred and tailored to their individual needs.
Objective
To implement and evaluate a patient-centred intervention to improve the management of patients with multimorbidity in general practice.
Design
Pragmatic, cluster randomised controlled trial with parallel process and economic evaluations. Practices were centrally randomised by a statistician blind to practice identifiers, using a computer-generated algorithm.
Setting
Thirty-three general practices in three areas of England and Scotland.
Participants
Practices had at least 4500 patients and two general practitioners (GPs) and used the EMIS (Egton Medical Information Systems) computer system. Patients were aged ≥ 18 years with three or more long-term conditions.
Interventions
The 3D (Dimensions of health, Depression and Drugs) intervention was designed to offer patients continuity of care with a named GP, replacing separate reviews of each long-term condition with comprehensive reviews every 6 months. These focused on individualising care to address patients’ main problems, attention to quality of life, depression and polypharmacy and on disease control and agreeing treatment plans. Control practices provided usual care.
Outcome measures
Primary outcome – health-related quality of life (assessed using the EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version) after 15 months. Secondary outcomes – measures of illness burden, treatment burden and patient-centred care. We assessed cost-effectiveness from a NHS and a social care perspective.
Results
Thirty-three practices (1546 patients) were randomised from May to December 2015 [16 practices (797 patients) to the 3D intervention, 17 practices (749 patients) to usual care]. All participants were included in the primary outcome analysis by imputing missing data. There was no evidence of difference between trial arms in health-related quality of life {adjusted difference in means 0.00 [95% confidence interval (CI) –0.02 to 0.02]; p = 0.93}, illness burden or treatment burden. However, patients reported significant benefits from the 3D intervention in all measures of patient-centred care. Qualitative data suggested that both patients and staff welcomed having more time, continuity of care and the patient-centred approach. The economic analysis found no meaningful differences between the intervention and usual care in either quality-adjusted life-years [(QALYs) adjusted mean QALY difference 0.007, 95% CI –0.009 to 0.023] or costs (adjusted mean difference £126, 95% CI –£739 to £991), with wide uncertainty around point estimates. The cost-effectiveness acceptability curve suggested that the intervention was unlikely to be either more or less cost-effective than usual care. Seventy-eight patients died (46 in the intervention arm and 32 in the usual-care arm), with no evidence of difference between trial arms; no deaths appeared to be associated with the intervention.
Limitations
In this pragmatic trial, the implementation of the intervention was incomplete: 49% of patients received two 3D reviews over 15 months, whereas 75% received at least one review.
Conclusions
The 3D approach reflected international consensus about how to improve care for multimorbidity. Although it achieved the aim of providing more patient-centred care, this was not associated with benefits in quality of life, illness burden or treatment burden. The intervention was no more or less cost-effective than usual care. Modifications to the 3D approach might improve its effectiveness. Evaluation is needed based on whole-system change over a longer period of time.
Trial registration
Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN06180958.
Funding
This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 7, No. 5. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Chris Salisbury
- Centre for Academic Primary Care, National Institute for Health Research School for Primary Care Research, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Mei-See Man
- Centre for Academic Primary Care, National Institute for Health Research School for Primary Care Research, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
- Bristol Randomised Trials Collaboration, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Katherine Chaplin
- Centre for Academic Primary Care, National Institute for Health Research School for Primary Care Research, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Cindy Mann
- Centre for Academic Primary Care, National Institute for Health Research School for Primary Care Research, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Peter Bower
- National Institute for Health Research School for Primary Care Research, Centre for Primary Care, Division of Population of Health, Health Services Research and Primary Care, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - Sara Brookes
- Bristol Randomised Trials Collaboration, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Polly Duncan
- Centre for Academic Primary Care, National Institute for Health Research School for Primary Care Research, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | | | - Caroline Gardner
- National Institute for Health Research School for Primary Care Research, Centre for Primary Care, Division of Population of Health, Health Services Research and Primary Care, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - Daisy M Gaunt
- Bristol Randomised Trials Collaboration, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Bruce Guthrie
- Population Health Sciences Division, School of Medicine, University of Dundee, Dundee, UK
| | - Sandra Hollinghurst
- Centre for Academic Primary Care, National Institute for Health Research School for Primary Care Research, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Bryar Kadir
- Bristol Randomised Trials Collaboration, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Victoria Lee
- National Institute for Health Research School for Primary Care Research, Centre for Primary Care, Division of Population of Health, Health Services Research and Primary Care, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - John McLeod
- Institute of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK
| | - Stewart W Mercer
- Institute of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK
| | - Keith R Moffat
- Institute of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK
| | - Emma Moody
- Bristol Clinical Commissioning Group, Bristol, UK
| | - Imran Rafi
- Royal College of General Practitioners, London, UK
| | | | - Alison Shaw
- Centre for Academic Primary Care, National Institute for Health Research School for Primary Care Research, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Joanna Thorn
- Centre for Academic Primary Care, National Institute for Health Research School for Primary Care Research, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
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
|
7
|
Bee P, Pedley R, Rithalia A, Richardson G, Pryjmachuk S, Kirk S, Bower P. Self-care support for children and adolescents with long-term conditions: the REfOCUS evidence synthesis. HEALTH SERVICES AND DELIVERY RESEARCH 2018. [DOI: 10.3310/hsdr06030] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/10/2023] Open
Abstract
BackgroundSelf-care support (e.g. education, training, peer/professional support) is intended to enhance the self-care capacities of children and young people, while simultaneously reducing the financial burden facing health-care systems.ObjectivesTo determine which models of self-care support for long-term conditions (LTCs) are associated with significant reductions in health utilisation and costs without compromising outcomes for children and young people.DesignSystematic review with meta-analysis.PopulationChildren and young people aged 0–18 years with a long-term physical or mental health condition (e.g. asthma, depression).InterventionSelf-care support in health, social care, educational or community settings.ComparatorUsual care.OutcomesGeneric/health-related quality of life (QoL)/subjective health symptoms and health service utilisation/costs.DesignRandomised/non-randomised trials, controlled before-and-after studies, and interrupted time series designs.Data sourcesMEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, ISI Web of Science, NHS Economic Evaluation Database, The Cochrane Library, Health Technology Assessment database, Paediatric Economic Database Evaluation, IDEAS, reference scanning, targeted author searches and forward citation searching. All databases were searched from inception to March 2015.MethodsWe conducted meta-analyses, simultaneously plotting QoL and health utilisation effects. We conducted subgroup analyses for evidence quality, age, LTC and intervention (setting, target, delivery format, intensity).ResultsNinety-seven studies reporting 114 interventions were included. Thirty-seven studies reported adequate allocation concealment. Fourteen were UK studies. The vast majority of included studies recruited children and young people with asthma (n = 66, 68%). Four per cent of studies evaluated ‘pure’ self-care support (delivered through health technology without additional contact), 23% evaluated facilitated self-care support (≤ 2 hours’/four sessions’ contact), 65% were intensively facilitated (≥ 2 hours’/four sessions’ contact) and 8% were case management (≥ 2 hours’ support with multidisciplinary input). Self-care support was associated with statistically significant, minimal benefits for QoL [effect size (ES) –0.17, 95% confidence interval (CI) –0.23 to –0.11], but lacked clear benefit for hospital admissions (ES –0.05, 95% CI –0.12 to 0.03). This finding endured across intervention intensities and LTCs. Statistically significant, minimal reductions in emergency use were observed (ES –0.11, 95% CI –0.17 to –0.04). The total cost analysis was limited by the small number of data. Subgroup analyses revealed statistically significant, minimal reductions in emergency use for children aged ≤ 13 years (ES –0.10, 95% CI –0.17 to –0.04), children and young people with asthma (ES –0.12, 95% CI –0.18 to –0.06) and children and young people receiving ≥ 2 hours per four sessions of support (ES –0.10, 95% CI –0.17 to –0.03). Preliminary evidence suggested that interventions that include the child or young person, and deliver some content individually, may optimise QoL effects. Face-to-face delivery may help to maximise emergency department effects. Caution is required in interpreting these findings.LimitationsIdentification of optimal models of self-care support is challenged by the size and nature of evidence available. The emphasis on meta-analysis meant that a minority of studies with incomplete but potentially relevant data were excluded.ConclusionsSelf-care support is associated with positive but minimal effects on children and young people’s QoL, and minimal, but potentially important, reductions in emergency use. On current evidence, we cannot reliably conclude that self-care support significantly reduces health-care costs.Future workResearch is needed to explore the short- and longer-term effects of self-care support across a wider range of LTCs.Study registrationThis study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42014015452.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Penny Bee
- Division of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work, University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK
| | - Rebecca Pedley
- Division of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work, University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK
| | - Amber Rithalia
- Division of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work, University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK
| | | | - Steven Pryjmachuk
- Division of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work, University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK
| | - Susan Kirk
- Division of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work, University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK
| | - Peter Bower
- National Institute for Health Research School for Primary Care Research, University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Harris P, Whitty JA, Kendall E, Ratcliffe J, Wilson A, Littlejohns P, Scuffham PA. The importance of population differences: Influence of individual characteristics on the Australian public's preferences for emergency care. Health Policy 2017; 122:115-125. [PMID: 29157994 DOI: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2017.11.006] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/07/2015] [Revised: 10/25/2017] [Accepted: 11/06/2017] [Indexed: 11/17/2022]
Abstract
A better understanding of the public's preferences and what factors influence them is required if they are to be used to drive decision-making in health. This is particularly the case for service areas undergoing continual reform such as emergency and primary care. Accordingly, this study sought to determine if attitudes, socio-demographic characteristics and healthcare experiences influence the public's intentions to access care and their preferences for hypothetical emergency care alternatives. A discrete choice experiment was used to elicit the preferences of Australian adults (n=1529). Mixed logit regression analyses revealed the influence of a range of individual characteristics on preferences and service uptake choices across three different presenting scenarios. Age was associated with service uptake choices in all contexts, whilst the impact of other sociodemographics, health experience and attitudinal factors varied by context. The improvements in explanatory power observed from including these factors in the models highlight the need to further clarify their influence with larger populations and other presenting contexts, and to identify other determinants of preference heterogeneity. The results suggest social marketing programs undertaken as part of demand management efforts need to be better targeted if decision-makers are seeking to increase community acceptance of emerging service models and alternatives. Other implications for health policy, service planning and research, including for workforce planning and the possible introduction of a system of co-payments are discussed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Paul Harris
- School of Medicine, School of Human Services and Social Work, The Hopkins Centre, Menzies Health Institute of Queensland, Griffith University, Meadowbrook, Queensland 4131, Australia.
| | - Jennifer A Whitty
- Norwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, Norwich, United Kingdom.
| | - Elizabeth Kendall
- The Hopkins Centre, Menzies Health Institute of Queensland, Griffith University, Meadowbrook, Australia.
| | - Julie Ratcliffe
- Institute for Choice, Business School, University of South Australia, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
| | - Andrew Wilson
- Menzies Centre for Health Policy, School of Public Health, University of Sydney, NSW, Australia.
| | - Peter Littlejohns
- Division of Health and Social Care Research, King's College School of Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
| | - Paul A Scuffham
- Menzies Health Institute of Queensland, Griffith University, Logan Campus, Nathan, Queensland, Australia.
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Abstract
Background. The use of qualitative research (QR) methods is recommended as good practice in discrete choice experiments (DCEs). This study investigated the use and reporting of QR to inform the design and/or interpretation of healthcare-related DCEs and explored the perceived usefulness of such methods. Methods. DCEs were identified from a systematic search of the MEDLINE database. Studies were classified by the quantity of QR reported (none, basic, or extensive). Authors (n = 91) of papers reporting the use of QR were invited to complete an online survey eliciting their views about using the methods. Results. A total of 254 healthcare DCEs were included in the review; of these, 111 (44%) did not report using any qualitative methods; 114 (45%) reported “basic” information; and 29 (11%) reported or cited “extensive” use of qualitative methods. Studies reporting the use of qualitative methods used them to select attributes and/or levels (n = 95; 66%) and/or pilot the DCE survey (n = 26; 18%). Popular qualitative methods included focus groups (n = 63; 44%) and interviews (n = 109; 76%). Forty-four studies (31%) reported the analytical approach, with content (n = 10; 7%) and framework analysis (n = 5; 4%) most commonly reported. The survey identified that all responding authors (n = 50; 100%) found that qualitative methods added value to their DCE study, but many (n = 22; 44%) reported that journals were uninterested in the reporting of QR results. Conclusions. Despite recommendations that QR methods be used alongside DCEs, the use of QR methods is not consistently reported. The lack of reporting risks the inference that QR methods are of little use in DCE research, contradicting practitioners’ assessments. Explicit guidelines would enable more clarity and consistency in reporting, and journals should facilitate such reporting via online supplementary materials.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Caroline Vass
- Manchester Centre for Health Economics, University of Manchester, UK (CV, KP)
| | - Dan Rigby
- Department of Economics, University of Manchester, UK (DR)
| | - Katherine Payne
- Manchester Centre for Health Economics, University of Manchester, UK (CV, KP)
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Harris P, Whitty JA, Kendall E, Ratcliffe J, Wilson A, Littlejohns P, Scuffham PA. The Australian public's preferences for emergency care alternatives and the influence of the presenting context: a discrete choice experiment. BMJ Open 2015; 5:e006820. [PMID: 25841233 PMCID: PMC4390735 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-006820] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/03/2014] [Revised: 03/05/2015] [Accepted: 03/06/2015] [Indexed: 11/11/2022] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVES The current study seeks to quantify the Australian public's preferences for emergency care alternatives and determine if preferences differ depending on presenting circumstances. SETTING Increasing presentations to emergency departments have led to overcrowding, long waiting times and suboptimal health system performance. Accordingly, new service models involving the provision of care in alternative settings and delivered by other practitioners continue to be developed. PARTICIPANTS A stratified sample of Australian adults (n=1838), 1382 from Queensland and 456 from South Australia, completed the survey. This included 951 females and 887 males from the 2045 people who met the screening criteria out of the 4354 people who accepted the survey invitation. INTERVENTIONS A discrete choice experiment was used to elicit preferences in the context of one of four hypothetical scenarios: a possible concussion, a rash/asthma-related problem involving oneself or one's child and an anxiety-related presentation. Mixed logit regression was used to analyse the dependent variable choice and identify the relative importance of care attributes and the propensity to access care in each context. RESULTS Results indicated a preference for treatment by an emergency physician in hospital for possible concussion and treatment by a doctor in ambulatory settings for rash/asthma-related and anxiety-related problems. Participants were consistently willing to wait longer before making trade-offs in the context of the rash/asthma-related scenario compared with when the same problem affected their child. Results suggest a clear preference for lower costs, shorter wait times and strong emphasis on quality care; however, significant preference heterogeneity was observed. CONCLUSIONS This study has increased awareness that the public's emergency care choices will differ depending on the presenting context. It has further demonstrated the importance of service quality as a determinant of healthcare choices. The findings have also provided insights into the Australian public's reactions to emergency care reforms.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Paul Harris
- School of Medicine, Population and Social Health Research Program, Menzies Health Institute Queensland, Griffith University, Meadowbrook, Queensland, Australia
| | - Jennifer A Whitty
- Faculty of Health and Behavioural Sciences, School of Pharmacy, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland, Australia
| | - Elizabeth Kendall
- Centre of National Research on Disability and Rehabilitation, Population and Social Health Research Program, Menzies Health Institute Queensland, Griffith University, Meadowbrook, Queensland, Australia
| | - Julie Ratcliffe
- Flinders Health Economics Group, School of Medicine, Flinders University, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
| | - Andrew Wilson
- Menzies Centre for Health Policy, School of Public Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Peter Littlejohns
- Division of Health and Social Care Research, King's College School of Medicine, London, UK
| | - Paul A Scuffham
- Centre for Applied Health Economics, Population and Social Health Research Program, Menzies Health Institute Queensland, Griffith University, Meadowbrook, Queensland, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Value judgments for priority setting criteria in genetic testing: A discrete choice experiment. Health Policy 2015; 119:164-73. [DOI: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2014.04.013] [Citation(s) in RCA: 16] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/26/2013] [Revised: 04/01/2014] [Accepted: 04/21/2014] [Indexed: 11/18/2022]
|
12
|
Panagioti M, Richardson G, Murray E, Rogers A, Kennedy A, Newman S, Small N, Bower P. Reducing Care Utilisation through Self-management Interventions (RECURSIVE): a systematic review and meta-analysis. HEALTH SERVICES AND DELIVERY RESEARCH 2014. [DOI: 10.3310/hsdr02540] [Citation(s) in RCA: 22] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/12/2022] Open
Abstract
BackgroundA critical part of future service delivery will involve improving the degree to which people become engaged in ‘self-management’. Providing better support for self-management has the potential to make a significant contribution to NHS efficiency, as well as providing benefits in patient health and quality of care.ObjectiveTo determine which models of self-management support are associated with significant reductions in health services utilisation (including hospital use) without compromising outcomes, among patients with long-term conditions.Data sourcesCochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health, EconLit (the American Economic Association’s electronic bibliography), EMBASE, Health Economics Evaluations Database, MEDLINE (the US National Library of Medicine’s database), MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, NHS Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED) and PsycINFO (the behavioural science and mental health database), as well as the reference lists of published reviews of self-management support.MethodsWe included patients with long-term conditions in all health-care settings and self-management support interventions with varying levels of additional professional support and input from multidisciplinary teams. Main outcome measures were quantitative measures of service utilisation (including hospital use) and quality of life (QoL). We presented the results for each condition group using a permutation plot, plotting the effect of interventions on utilisation and outcomes simultaneously and placing them in quadrants of the cost-effectiveness plane depending on the pattern of outcomes. We also conducted conventional meta-analyses of outcomes.ResultsWe found 184 studies that met the inclusion criteria and provided data for analysis. The most common categories of long-term conditions included in the studies were cardiovascular (29%), respiratory (24%) and mental health (16%). Of the interventions, 5% were categorised as ‘pure self-management’ (without additional professional support), 20% as ‘supported self-management’ (< 2 hours’ support), 47% as ‘intensive self-management’ (> 2 hours’ support) and 28% as ‘case management’ (> 2 hours’ support including input from a multidisciplinary team). We analysed data across categories of long-term conditions and also analysed comparing self-management support (pure, supported, intense) with case management. Only a minority of self-management support studies reported reductions in health-care utilisation in association with decrements in health. Self-management support was associated with small but significant improvements in QoL. Evidence for significant reductions in utilisation following self-management support interventions were strongest for interventions in respiratory and cardiovascular disorders. Caution should be exercised in the interpretation of the results, as we found evidence that studies at higher risk of bias were more likely to report benefits on some outcomes. Data on hospital use outcomes were also consistent with the possibility of small-study bias.LimitationsSelf-management support is a complex area in which to undertake literature searches. Our analyses were limited by poor reporting of outcomes in the included studies, especially concerning health-care utilisation and costs.ConclusionsVery few self-management support interventions achieve reductions in utilisation while compromising patient outcomes. Evidence for significant reductions in utilisation were strongest for respiratory disorders and cardiac disorders. Research priorities relate to better reporting of the content of self-management support, exploration of the impact of multimorbidity and assessment of factors influencing the wider implementation of self-management support.Study registrationThis study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42012002694.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Maria Panagioti
- National Institute for Health Research School for Primary Care Research, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | | | - Elizabeth Murray
- Research Department of Primary Care and Population Health, University College London, London, UK
| | - Anne Rogers
- Health Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
| | - Anne Kennedy
- Health Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
| | - Stanton Newman
- School of Health Sciences, City University London, London, UK
| | - Nicola Small
- National Institute for Health Research School for Primary Care Research, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - Peter Bower
- National Institute for Health Research School for Primary Care Research, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Seghieri C, Mengoni A, Nuti S. Applying discrete choice modelling in a priority setting: an investigation of public preferences for primary care models. THE EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF HEALTH ECONOMICS : HEPAC : HEALTH ECONOMICS IN PREVENTION AND CARE 2014; 15:773-785. [PMID: 24241816 PMCID: PMC4145207 DOI: 10.1007/s10198-013-0542-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 19] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/11/2013] [Accepted: 11/04/2013] [Indexed: 06/01/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES The shift toward more innovative and sustainable primary care models in Italy leads policy makers and clinicians to face difficult decisions between options that are all regarded as potentially beneficial. In this study, patient preferences for different primary care models in the Tuscany region of Italy were elicited. The relative importance of different attributes to the surveyed respondents was then examined, as well as the rate at which individuals trade between attributes and the relative value of different service configurations. METHODS A discrete choice experiment survey explored the following attributes in a stratified random sample of 6,970 adults: primary care provider, diagnostic facilities and waiting time for the visit. RESULTS Respondents (3,263) were likely to prefer a consultation by their own general practitioner (GP) and a practice with many diagnostic facilities. The predicted utilities of different service configurations have shown that a "primary care centre" with many diagnostic facilities was preferable to a "solo GP" model or a "group general practice". CONCLUSIONS The study demonstrated how a patient choice model could be used by decision makers for developing successful policies that takes into account different healthcare needs, balancing responsiveness with care continuity, equity and appropriateness. Considering that a primary care centre would perform better than a "solo GP", especially for younger respondents and for those with minor healthcare needs, for a more rapid diffusion of this model policymakers and managers could direct the care of primary care centres towards these targeted subgroups, at least in the first phase.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Chiara Seghieri
- Laboratorio Management e Sanità, Istituto di Management, Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna, Piazza Martiri della Libertà, 24, 56127, Pisa, Italy,
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
14
|
Lock J, Raat H, Peters M, Tamminga RYJ, Leebeek FWG, Moll HA, Cnossen MH. Reliability and validity of a novel Haemophilia-specific Self-Efficacy Scale. Haemophilia 2014; 20:e267-74. [DOI: 10.1111/hae.12435] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 03/09/2014] [Indexed: 11/30/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- J. Lock
- Department of Paediatric Haematology; Erasmus MC - Sophia Children's Hospital; Rotterdam The Netherlands
| | - H. Raat
- Department of Public Health; Erasmus MC, University Medical Centre Rotterdam; Rotterdam The Netherlands
| | - M. Peters
- Department of Paediatric Haematology; Academic Medical Centre Amsterdam; Amsterdam The Netherlands
| | - R. Y. J. Tamminga
- Department of Paediatric Haematology; University Medical Centre Groningen; Groningen The Netherlands
| | - F. W. G. Leebeek
- Department of Haematology; Erasmus MC, University Medical Centre Rotterdam; Rotterdam The Netherlands
| | - H. A. Moll
- Department of General Paediatrics; Erasmus MC - Sophia Children's Hospital; Rotterdam The Netherlands
| | - M. H. Cnossen
- Department of Paediatric Haematology; Erasmus MC - Sophia Children's Hospital; Rotterdam The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
15
|
Ryan M, Kinghorn P, Entwistle VA, Francis JJ. Valuing patients' experiences of healthcare processes: towards broader applications of existing methods. Soc Sci Med 2014; 106:194-203. [PMID: 24568844 PMCID: PMC3988932 DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.01.013] [Citation(s) in RCA: 29] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/05/2013] [Revised: 12/05/2013] [Accepted: 01/10/2014] [Indexed: 10/26/2022]
Abstract
Healthcare policy leaders internationally recognise that people's experiences of healthcare delivery are important, and invest significant resources to monitor and improve them. However, the value of particular aspects of experiences of healthcare delivery - relative to each other and to other healthcare outcomes - is unclear. This paper considers how economic techniques have been and might be used to generate quantitative estimates of the value of particular experiences of healthcare delivery. A recently published conceptual map of patients' experiences served to guide the scope and focus of the enquiry. The map represented both what health services and staff are like and do and what individual patients can feel like, be and do (while they are using services and subsequently). We conducted a systematic search for applications of economic techniques to healthcare delivery. We found that these techniques have been quite widely used to estimate the value of features of healthcare systems and processes (e.g. of care delivery by a nurse rather than a doctor, or of a consultation of 10 minutes rather than 15 minutes), but much less to estimate the value of the implications of these features for patients personally. To inform future research relating to the valuation of experiences of healthcare delivery, we organised a workshop for key stakeholders. Participants undertook and discussed 'exercises' that explored the use of different economic techniques to value descriptions of healthcare delivery that linked processes to what patients felt like and were able to be and do. The workshop identified a number of methodological issues that need careful attention, and highlighted some important concerns about the ways in which quantitative estimates of the value of experiences of healthcare delivery might be used. However the workshop confirmed enthusiasm for efforts to attend directly to the implications of healthcare delivery from patients' perspectives, including in terms of their capabilities.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mandy Ryan
- Health Economics Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, UK. http://www.abdn.ac.uk/heru
| | - Philip Kinghorn
- Health Economics Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, UK; Health Economics Unit, University of Birmingham, UK
| | - Vikki A Entwistle
- Health Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, UK; Social Dimensions of Health Institute, University of Dundee, UK
| | - Jill J Francis
- Health Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, UK; School of Health Sciences, City University London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
16
|
Gu NY, Botteman MF, Gerber RA, Ji X, Postema R, Wan Y, Sianos G, Anthony I, Cappelleri JC, Szczypa P, van Hout B. Eliciting health state utilities for Dupuytren's contracture using a discrete choice experiment. Acta Orthop 2013; 84:571-8. [PMID: 24286567 PMCID: PMC3851672 DOI: 10.3109/17453674.2013.865097] [Citation(s) in RCA: 17] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/31/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE An internet-based discrete choice experiment (DCE) was conducted to elicit preferences for a wide range of Dupuytren's contracture (DC)-related health states. An algorithm was subsequently developed to convert these preferences into health state utilities that can be used to assess DC's impact on quality of life and the value of its treatments. METHODS Health state preferences for varying levels of DC hand severity were elicited via an internet survey from a sample of the UK adult population. Severity levels were defined using a combination of contractures (0, 45, or 90 degrees) in 8 proximal interphalangeal and metacarpophalangeal joints of the index, middle, ring, and little fingers. Right-handed, left-handed, and ambidextrous respondents indicated which hand was preferable in each of the 10 randomly-selected hand-pairings comparing different DC severity levels. For consistency across comparisons, anatomically precise digital hand drawings were used. To anchor preferences onto the traditional 0-1 utility scale used in health economic evaluations, unaffected hands were assigned a utility of 1.0 whereas the utility for a maximally affected hand (i.e., all 8 joints set at 90 degrees of contracture) was derived by asking respondents to indicate what combination of attributes and levels of the EQ-5D-5L profile most accurately reflects the impact of living with such hand. Conditional logistic models were used to estimate indirect utilities, then rescaled to the anchor points on the EQ-5D-5L. RESULTS Estimated utilities based on the responses of 1,745 qualified respondents were 0.49, 0.57, and 0.63 for completely affected dominant hands, non-dominant hands, or ambidextrous hands, respectively. Utility for a dominant hand with 90-degree contracture in t h e metacarpophalangeal joints of the ring and little fingers was estimated to be 0.89. Separately, reducing the contracture of metacarpophalangeal joint for a little finger from 50 to 12 degrees would improve utility by 0.02. INTERPRETATION DC is associated with substantial utility decrements. The algorithms presented herein provide a robust and flexible framework to assess utility for varying degrees of DC severity.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ning Yan Gu
- Pharmerit International, Bethesda, MD, USA,University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM
| | | | | | - Xiang Ji
- Pharmerit International, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - Roelien Postema
- Pharmerit International, Rotterdam, the Netherlands,Eli Lilly and Company, Houten, the Netherlands
| | - Yin Wan
- Pharmerit International, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | | | | | | | | | - Ben van Hout
- Pharmerit International, York,University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
| |
Collapse
|
17
|
Essers BAB, van Helvoort-Postulart D, Prins MH, Neumann M, Dirksen CD. Does the inclusion of a cost attribute result in different preferences for the surgical treatment of primary basal cell carcinoma?: a comparison of two discrete-choice experiments. PHARMACOECONOMICS 2010; 28:507-520. [PMID: 20387912 DOI: 10.2165/11532240-000000000-00000] [Citation(s) in RCA: 24] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 05/29/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Nowadays, an increasing number of discrete-choice experiments (DCEs) incorporate cost as an attribute. However, the inclusion of a cost attribute, particularly within collectively funded healthcare systems, can be challenging because health services or goods are generally not traded in a market situation and individuals are not used to paying for a service or a good at the point of consumption. OBJECTIVE To examine whether the inclusion of a cost attribute in a DCE results in different preferences regarding a surgical treatment for primary basal cell carcinoma (BCC) compared with a DCE without a cost attribute. METHODS A randomized study was performed in which the impact of a cost attribute on the general public's preferences for a surgical treatment (Mohs micrographic surgery [MMS] or standard excision [SE]) to remove BCC was examined. This was done by comparing the outcomes of two DCEs, one with a cost attribute (DCE_cost) and one without (DCE_nocost). Six attributes (recurrence, re-excision, travel time, surgical time, waiting time for surgical results, costs) and their levels were selected, based on results of a clinical trial, a cost-effectiveness study, a review and a focus group of patients who had recently received treatment for BCC. Outcomes of both DCEs were compared in terms of theoretical validity, relative importance of the attributes and the rank order of preferences. RESULTS A total of 615 respondents (n = 303 for DCE_nocost; n = 312 for DCE_cost) were interviewed by telephone. This gave an overall response rate of 38%. Respondents in DCE_nocost preferred a surgical treatment with a lower probability of recurrence, lower surgery time, lower waiting time and no risk for a re-excision. Respondents in DCE_cost showed the same preferences, but also preferred a treatment with less travel time and lower costs. Overall, respondents in both DCEs showed the same preference for a surgical treatment: MMS was preferred over SE. CONCLUSION Results suggest that, in this population, the inclusion of a cost attribute in a DCE leads to the same preference regarding a surgical treatment to remove BCC as a DCE without a cost attribute. However, further research in different settings is needed to confirm these findings.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Brigitte A B Essers
- Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Medical Technology Assessment, University Hospital Maastricht, 6202 AZ Maastricht, the Netherlands.
| | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
18
|
|