Understanding public preferences and trade-offs for government responses during a pandemic: a protocol for a discrete choice experiment in the UK

INTRODUCTION

Social distancing and lockdown measures are among the main government responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. These measures aim to limit the COVID-19 infection rate and reduce the mortality rate of COVID-19. Given we are likely to see local lockdowns until a treatment or vaccine for COVID-19 is available, and their effectiveness depends on public acceptability, it is important to understand public preference for government responses.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Using a discrete choice experiment (DCE), this study will investigate the public's preferences for pandemic responses in the UK. Attributes (and levels) are based on: (1) lockdown measures described in policy documents; (2) literature on preferences for lockdown measures and (3) a social media analysis. Attributes include: lockdown type; lockdown length; postponement of usual non-urgent medical care; number of excess deaths; number of infections; impact on household spending and job losses. We will prepilot the DCE using virtual think aloud interviews with respondents recruited via Facebook. We will collect preference data using an online survey of 4000 individuals from across the four UK countries (1000 per country). We will estimate the relative importance of the attributes, and the trade-offs individuals are willing to make between attributes. We will test if respondents' preferences differ based on moral attitudes (using the Moral Foundation Questionnaire), socioeconomic circumstances (age, education, economic insecurity, health status), country of residence and experience of COVID-19.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The University of Aberdeen's College Ethics Research Board (CERB) has approved the study (reference: CERB/2020/6/1974). We will seek CERB approval for major changes from the developmental and pilot work. Peer-reviewed papers will be submitted, and results will be presented at public health and health economic conferences nationally and internationally. A lay summary will be published on the Health Economics Research Unit blog.

Public acceptability of non-pharmaceutical interventions to control a pandemic in the UK: a discrete choice experiment

OBJECTIVE

To understand how individuals trade off between features of non-pharmaceutical interventions (eg, lockdowns) to control a pandemic across the four nations of the UK.

DESIGN

A survey that included a discrete choice experiment. The survey design was informed using policy documents, social media analysis and input from remote think-aloud interviews with members of the public (n=23).

SETTING

A nationwide survey across the four nations of the UK using an online panel between 29 October and 12 December 2020.

PARTICIPANTS

Individuals who are over 18 years old. A total of 4120 adults completed the survey (1112 in England, 848 in Northern Ireland, 1143 in Scotland and 1098 in Wales).

PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE

Adult's preferences for, and trade-offs between, type of lockdown restrictions, length of lockdown, postponement of routine healthcare, excess deaths, impact on the ability to buy things and unemployment.

RESULTS

The majority of adults are willing to accept higher excess deaths if this means lockdowns that are less strict, shorter and do not postpone routine healthcare. On average, respondents in England were willing to accept a higher increase in excess deaths to have less strict lockdown restrictions introduced compared with Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales, respectively. In all four countries, one out of five respondents were willing to reduce excess deaths at all costs.

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of the UK population is willing to accept the increase in excess deaths associated with introducing less strict lockdown restrictions. The acceptability of different restriction scenarios varies according to the features of the lockdown and across countries. Governments can use information about trade-off preferences to inform the introduction of different lockdown restriction levels and design compensation policies that maximise societal welfare.

Using a discrete choice experiment to develop a decision aid tool to inform the management of persistent pain in pharmacy: a protocol for a randomised feasibility study

INTRODUCTION

In an era of personalised healthcare, it has become increasingly important to elicit individual-level preferences. While discrete choice experiments (DCEs) are widely used to measure patient preferences in the delivery of healthcare, the focus has been sample-level analysis. Using the DCE methodology, this project has designed a digital decision aid tool (DAT) with the potential to estimate individual preferences in real time to inform clinical consultation decisions in persistent pain management.

METHODS

Using a feasibility randomised control trial, this study aims to assess the feasibility of using this Understanding Persistent Pain (UPP) DAT in a pharmacy-based clinical setting and to test processes for a future definite randomised trial. Community and practice-based pharmacists (up to 10) will be recruited in The National Health Service (NHS) Grampian and trained in the use of the digital UPP DAT. Pharmacists will recruit up to 60 patients who are living with persistent pain. Patients will be randomised to one of two groups: using the UPP DAT or usual care. Pharmacists will follow-up patients as needed according to clinical need and following standard practice. DCE response data collected by the UPP DAT will be analysed using the penalised logit model, allowing estimation of individual preferences in real time. We will follow-up pharmacists and patients who use the UPP DAT to gather feedback on their experiences.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study received ethical approval from the North of Scotland Research Ethics Committee (21/NS/0059) and received Research & Development Management Permission to proceed from NHS Grampian (2021UA003E). The study has been registered in the ClinicalTrials.gov database. Findings will be disseminated in peer-reviewed publications, presentations and newsletters and made available in the University of Aberdeen and Pharmacy Research UK websites. Participants gave informed consent to participate in the study before taking part.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT05102578; clinicaltrials.gov.

Public preferences and willingness to pay for a net zero NHS: a protocol for a discrete choice experiment in England and Scotland

INTRODUCTION

Climate change poses a major threat to our health, livelihoods and the planet. In 2020, the UK National Health Service (NHS) committed to reducing its Scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions to reach net zero by 2045. Although a net zero NHS would help to limit the consequences of climate change, little is known about the UK general public's values and preferences for the proposed service changes needed to reach net zero.

METHODS

This study will elicit the public's preferences for actions to help achieve net zero NHS in England and Scotland using a discrete choice experiment (DCE). The DCE attributes and levels describe actions that can be taken by the NHS across key areas: buildings and estates, outdoor space, travel and transport, provision of care, goods and services and food and catering. The survey was designed using online think-aloud interviews with 17 members of the public. Two versions of the survey will be administered to a sample of up to 2200 respondents. One will include a payment vehicle as income tax increases. We will estimate the relative importance of each attribute and, for the former survey, the monetary trade-offs which individuals are willing to make between attributes. Where possible, we will match both samples to gauge preference robustness with the inclusion of the monetary payment. We will test whether respondents' preferences differ based on their socioeconomic circumstances and attitudes toward the NHS and climate change.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The University of Aberdeen's School of Medicine, Medical Sciences and Nutrition Ethics Research Board has approved the study (reference: SERB/690090). All participants will provide informed consent. Results will be submitted to peer-reviewed publications and presented at relevant conferences and seminars. A lay summary of the research will be published on the Health Economics Research Unit website.

Musculoskeletal patients' preferences for care from physiotherapists or support workers: a discrete choice experiment

BACKGROUND

Delegation of clinical tasks from physiotherapists to physiotherapy support workers is common yet varies considerably in musculoskeletal outpatient physiotherapy services, leading to variation in patient care. This study aimed to explore patients' preferences and estimate specific trade-offs patients are willing to make in treatment choices when treated in musculoskeletal outpatient physiotherapy services.

METHODS

A discrete choice experiment was conducted using an efficient design with 16 choice scenarios, divided into two blocks. Adult patients with musculoskeletal conditions recruited from a physiotherapy service completed a cross-sectional, online questionnaire. Choice data analyses were conducted using a multinomial logit model. The marginal rate of substitution for waiting time to first follow-up physiotherapy appointment and distance from the physiotherapy clinic was calculated and a probability model was built to estimate the probability of choosing between two distinct physiotherapy service options under different scenarios.

RESULTS

382 patient questionnaires were completed; 302 participants were treated by physiotherapists and 80 by physiotherapists and support workers. There was a significant preference to be seen by a physiotherapist, have more follow-up treatments, to wait less time for the first follow-up appointment, to be seen one-to-one, to see the same clinician, to travel a shorter distance to get to the clinic and to go to clinics with ample parking. Participants treated by support workers did not have a significant preference to be seen by a physiotherapist and it was more likely that they would choose to be seen by a support worker for clinic scenarios where the characteristics of the physiotherapy service were as good or better.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings highlight that patients treated by support workers are likely to choose to be treated by support workers again if the other service characteristics are as good or better compared to a service where treatment is provided only by physiotherapists. Findings have implications for the design of physiotherapy services to enhance patient experience when patients are treated by support workers. The findings will contribute to the development of "best practice" recommendations to guide physiotherapists in delegating clinical work to physiotherapy support workers for patients with musculoskeletal conditions.

Trade-offs between overall survival and side effects in the treatment of metastatic breast cancer: eliciting preferences of patients with primary and metastatic breast cancer using a discrete choice experiment

OBJECTIVES

There has been a recent proliferation in treatment options for patients with metastatic breast cancer. Such treatments often involve trade-offs between overall survival and side effects. Our study aims to estimate the trade-offs that could be used to inform decision-making at the individual and policy level.

DESIGN

We designed a discrete choice experiment (DCE) to look at preferences for avoiding severity levels of side effects when choosing treatment for metastatic breast cancer. Treatment attributes were: fatigue, nausea, diarrhoea, other side effects (peripheral neuropathy, hand-foot syndrome and mucositis) and urgent hospital admission and overall survival. Responses were analysed using an error component logit model. We estimated the relative importance of attributes and minimum acceptable survival for improvements in side effects.

SETTING

The DCE was completed online by UK residents with self-reported diagnoses of breast cancer.

PARTICIPANTS

105 respondents participated, of which 72 patients had metastatic breast cancer and 33 patients had primary breast cancer.

RESULTS

Overall survival had the largest relative importance, followed by other side effects, diarrhoea, nausea and fatigue. The risk of urgent hospital admission was not significant. While overall survival was the most important attribute, respondents were willing to forgo some absolute probability of overall survival for reductions in all Grade 2 side effects (12.02% for hand-foot syndrome, 11.01% for mucositis, 10.42% for peripheral neuropathy, 6.33% for diarrhoea and 3.62% for nausea). Grade 1 side effects were not significant, suggesting respondents have a general tolerance for them.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients are willing to forgo overall survival to avoid particular severity levels of side effects. Our results have implications for data collected in research studies and can help inform person-centred care and shared decision-making.

Impact of patient sex on selection for abdominal aortic aneurysm repair: a discrete choice experiment

OBJECTIVES

Women with an abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) are less likely to receive elective repair than men. This study explored the effect of patient sex and other attributes on vascular surgeons' decision-making for infrarenal AAA repair.

DESIGN

Discrete choice experiment.

SETTING

Simulated environment using case scenarios with varying patient attributes.

PARTICIPANTS

Vascular surgeons.

INTERVENTIONS

Surgical decision-making.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

AAA repair versus no repair and endovascular versus open repair.

RESULTS

182 surgeons completed 2987 scenarios. When all other attributes were equal, a woman was more likely to be offered an AAA repair (marginal rate of substitution (MRS) 3.86 (95% CI 2.93, 4.79)), while very high anaesthetic risk (MRS -4.33 (95% CI -5.63, -3.03)) and hostile anatomy (MRS -3.28 (95% CI -4.55, -2.01)) were deterrents. Increasing age did not adversely affect the likelihood of offering repair to men but decreased the likelihood for women, which negated women's selection advantage from the age of 83 years. Women were also more likely to be offered endovascular repair (MRS 2.57 (95% CI 1.30, 3.84)).

CONCLUSIONS

Patient sex alone did not account for real-world disparity observed in selection for surgery. Rather, being a woman was associated with a higher likelihood of being offered AAA repair but also a higher likelihood of being offered less invasive endovascular repair. Increased age decreased the likelihood of surgical selection for women but not men. Preference for less invasive repair, combined with inferior rates of anatomical suitability, and the comparably older age of women at the time of AAA repair selection may account for lower rates of repair for women observed.