Enhancing Public Participation in Public Health Offerings: Patient Preferences for Facilities in the Western Cape Province Using a Discrete Choice Experiment

Understanding patients’ preferences for health facilities could help decision makers in designing patient-centered services. Therefore, this study aims to understand how patients’ willingness to trade for certain attributes affects the choice of public health facilities in the Western Cape province of Cape Town, South Africa. A discrete choice experiment was conducted in two community day centers (CDCs). Patients repetitively chose between two hypothetical health facilities that differed in six attributes: distance to facility, treatment by doctors vs. nurses, confidentiality during treatment, availability of medication, first visit (drop-in) waiting times, and appointment waiting times. The sample consisted of 463 participants. The findings showed that availability of medication (50.5%), appointment waiting times (19.5%), and first visit waiting times (10.2%) were the most important factors for patients when choosing a health facility. In addition, respondents preferred shorter appointment and first visit waiting times (<2 h). These results identified important characteristics in choosing public health facilities in Cape Town. These public health facilities could be improved by including patient voices to inform operational and policy decisions in a low-income setting.

Conceptualizing Health Promotion in Relation to Outpatient Healthcare Building Design: A Scoping Review

OBJECTIVE:

This review explored different conceptualizations of health promotion in the context of, and in relation to, outpatient building design.

BACKGROUND:

Today's healthcare organizations are implementing holistic healthcare approaches such as health promotion, while simultaneously increasing their outpatient services. These health promotion approaches, focused on empowering people to take control of their health, are expected to have implications for the outpatient healthcare building design. Yet there is limited knowledge what these may be. A review of the literature on the current state of the art is thus needed to enable and support dialog on future healthcare building design.

METHOD:

A scoping review of 4,506 papers, collected from four databases and three scientific journals in 2015, resulted in 14 papers relating health promotion to building design and outpatient healthcare. From the subsequent content analysis, multiple common themes and subthemes emerged.

RESULTS:

The review reveals diverse range of health promotion interpretations, three health promotion perspectives (health behavior, health equity, and sense of coherence), associated design approaches, design objectives, health-related outcomes, building features, and solutions.

CONCLUSIONS:

While diverse health promotion perspectives might merely represent variations in focus, these differences become problematic when relating to building design. To support further dialogs on development of health promotion in, and in relation to, the build environment, there is a need to strengthen the health promotion vocabulary. Further research is needed to compare different design approaches and how these can be combined to minimize contradicting implications for building design.

Using a Discrete Choice Conjoint Experiment to Engage Stakeholders in the Design of an Outpatient Children’s Health Center

Objectives:

To engage users in the design of a regional child and youth health center.

Background:

The perspective of users should be an integral component of a patient-centered, evidence-based approach to the design of health facilities.

Methods:

We conducted a discrete choice conjoint experiment (DCE), a method from marketing research and health economics, as a component of a strategy to engage users in the preconstruction planning process. A sample of 467 participants (290 staff and 177 clients or community stakeholders) completed the DCE.

Results:

Latent class analysis identified three segments with different design preferences. A group we termed an enhanced design (57%) segment preferred a fully featured facility with personal contacts at the start of visits (in-person check-in, personal waiting room notification, volunteer-assisted wayfinding, and visible security), a family resource center with a health librarian, and an outdoor playground equipped with covered heated pathways. The self-guided design segment (11%), in contrast, preferred a design allowing a more independent use of the facility (e.g., self-check-in at computer kiosks, color-coded wayfinding, and a self-guided family resource center). Designs affording privacy and personal contact with staff were important to the private design segment (32%). The theme and decor of the building was less important than interactive features and personal contacts.

Conclusion:

A DCE allowed us to engage users in the planning process by estimating the value of individual design elements, identifying segments with differing views, informing decisions regarding design trade-offs, and simulating user response to design options.