Modeling the hospital safety partnership preferences of patients and their families: a discrete choice conjoint experiment

Current Practices for Accounting for Preference Heterogeneity in Health-Related Discrete Choice Experiments: A Systematic Review

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.

An exploration of the perspectives of individuals and their caregivers on pressure ulcer/injury prevention and management to inform the development of a clinical guideline

BACKGROUND

Consumer engagement is a requirement of high quality clinical guidelines. Developing strategies to engage consumers and incorporate the perspectives of individuals with or at risk of pressure ulcers/injuries and their informal caregivers was one priority in the recent update of the EPUAP/NPIAP/PPPIA's Prevention and Treatment of Pressure Ulcers/Injuries: Clinical Practice Guideline.

AIMS

The aims were to determine the goals of individuals and caregivers for pressure ulcer/injury care, priorities for pressure ulcer/injury education and biggest problems related to pressure ulcers/injuries.

METHODS

An online, anonymous, international 10-item survey, accessible in nine languages was provided to individuals and their caregivers from April to October 2018. Descriptive statistics were used for quantitative data and a thematic analysis approach was used to analyse qualitative data.

RESULTS

There were 1233 individuals from 27 countries who completed the survey. Overall, individuals and caregivers had similar goals of care. Reducing the size of pressure ulcer/injury was selected more often as a care goal than complete healing. Individuals, compared to caregivers, considered managing pain more important. Qualitative data analysis identified five themes including knowledge, attitudes, and skills; risk factors for pressure ulcer/injury; accessing pressure ulcer/injury care; quality of life for patients and caregivers; and the pressure ulcer/injury.

CONCLUSIONS

The consumer survey provided consumer engagement and perspective that was incorporated into guideline development, including consideration during evaluation of the relevance and acceptability of recommendations, and assignment of recommendation strength ratings.

The Family and Safety of the Hospitalized Patient: An Integrative Literature Review

<b><i>Framework:</i></b> Considering that the current data on health care safety remain alarming, there is an overwhelming urge for the ongoing study of this topic and for recommendations and differentiated strategies which aim to promote health and which prove effective. Some recommendations have been taken into consideration, such as patient-centered care, and consequently the need for greater involvement of patient and family in this process. However, we have identified arguments for and against the involvement of family in the care process, and consequently a greater or lesser openness towards hospital visits. <b><i>Objective:</i></b> What are the implications of the presence of family for the safety of hospitalized patients? What does the science say about these implications? <b><i>Methods:</i></b> We conducted an integrative literature review by referring to the Web of Science, CINAHL, Medline, and Scopus databases, according to the recommendations of the Joanna Briggs Institute for scoping review. <b><i>Results:</i></b> We found 115 articles. After selection, 13 articles were included in this review. There were 6 qualitative studies, 5 quantitative studies, and 2 literature reviews. Data were grouped according to: the perspective of patients and their families, the health professionals’ perspective, and statistical evidence. <b><i>Conclusion:</i></b> Families take efforts to protect the safety of hospitalized patients but feel unprepared; a lack of follow-up was reported. Some health professionals claim that the presence of the family can increase the risks for patient safety and the fear of an increased workload. The evidence of the presence of the family and its link to the safety of the hospitalized patient demonstrated that this relationship is not yet well understood. There were limited findings about this in the current literature. <b><i>Relevance to Clinical Practice:</i></b> Structured interventions about family integration in ensuring the safety of hospitalized patients may have the potential to contribute to the safety of health care.

Provider Perspectives on Partnering With Parents of Hospitalized Children to Improve Safety

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

There is increasing emphasis on the importance of patient and family engagement for improving patient safety. Our purpose in this study was to understand health care team perspectives on parent-provider safety partnerships for hospitalized US children to complement a parallel study of parent perspectives.

METHODS

Our research team, including a family advisor, conducted semistructured interviews and focus groups of a purposive sample of 20 inpatient pediatric providers (nurses, patient care technicians, physicians) in an acute-care pediatric unit at a US urban tertiary hospital. We used a constant comparison technique and qualitative thematic content analysis.

RESULTS

Themes emerged from providers on facilitators, barriers, and role negotiation and/or balancing interpersonal interactions in parent-provider safety partnership. Facilitators included the following: (1) mutual respect of roles, (2) parent advocacy and rule-following, and (3) provider quality care, empathetic adaptability, and transparent communication of expectations. Barriers included the following: (1) lack of respect, (2) differences in parent versus provider risk perception and parent lack of availability, and (3) provider medical errors and inconsistent communication, lack of engagement skills and time, and fear of overwhelming information. Providers described themes related to balancing parent advocacy with clinician's expertise, a provider's personal response to challenges to the professional role, and parents balancing relationship building with escalating safety concerns.

CONCLUSIONS

To keep children safe in the hospital, providers balance perceived challenges to their personal and professional roles continuously in interpersonal interactions, paralleling parent concerns about role ambiguity and trust. Understanding these shared barriers to and facilitators of parent-provider safety partnerships can inform system design, parent education, and professional training.

Using Latent Class Analysis to Model Preference Heterogeneity in Health: A Systematic Review

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.