Dataset Information

Do patients' preferences prevail in hospital selection?: a comparison between discrete choice experiments and revealed hospital choice.

ABSTRACT:

Background

In patient choice, patients are expected to select the provider that best fits their preferences. In this study, we assess to what extent the hospital choice of patients in practice corresponds with their preferred choice.

Methods

Dutch patients with breast cancer (n = 631) and cataract (n = 1109) were recruited. We employed a discrete choice experiment (DCE) per condition to measure stated preferences and predict the distribution of patients across four hospitals. Each DCE included five attributes: patient experiences, a clinical outcome indicator, waiting time, travel distance and whether the hospital had been recommended (e.g., by the General Practitioner (GP)). Revealed choices were derived from claims data.

Results

Hospital quality was valued as most important in the DCE; the largest marginal rates of substitution (willingness to wait) were observed for the clinical outcome indicator (breast cancer: 38.6 days (95% confidence interval (95%CI): 32.9-44.2); cataract: 210.5 days (95%CI: 140.8-280.2)). In practice, it was of lesser importance. In revealed choices, travel distance became the most important attribute; it accounted for 85.5% (breast cancer) and 95.5% (cataract) of the log-likelihood. The predicted distribution of patients differed from that observed in practice in terms of absolute value and, for breast cancer, also in relative order. Similar results were observed in population weighted analyses.

Discussion

Study findings show that patients highly valued quality information in the choice for a hospital. However, in practice these preferences did not prevail. Our findings suggest that GPs played a major role and that patients mostly ended up selecting the nearest hospital.

SUBMITTER: Salampessy BH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9461248 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Do patients' preferences prevail in hospital selection?: a comparison between discrete choice experiments and revealed hospital choice.

Salampessy Benjamin H BH Ikkersheim David D Portrait France R M FRM Koolman Xander X

BMC health services research 20220908 1

<h4>Background</h4>In patient choice, patients are expected to select the provider that best fits their preferences. In this study, we assess to what extent the hospital choice of patients in practice corresponds with their preferred choice.<h4>Methods</h4>Dutch patients with breast cancer (n = 631) and cataract (n = 1109) were recruited. We employed a discrete choice experiment (DCE) per condition to measure stated preferences and predict the distribution of patients across four hospitals. Each ...[more]

PMID: 36076226

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionDiscrete choice experiments (DCE) are increasingly being conducted using online panels. However, the comparability of such DCE-based preferences to traditional modes of data collection (e.g., in-person) is not well established. In this study, supervised, face-to-face DCE was compared with its unsupervised, online facsimile on face validity, respondent behavior, and modeled preferences.MethodsData from face-to-face and online EQ-5D-5L health state valuation studies were compared, in which each used the same experimental design and quota sampling procedure. Respondents completed 7 binary DCE tasks comparing 2 EQ-5D-5L health states presented side by side (health states A and B). Data face validity was assessed by comparing preference patterns as a function of the severity difference between 2 health states within a task. The prevalence of potentially suspicious choice patterns (i.e., all As, all Bs, and alternating As/Bs) was compared between studies. Preference data were modeled using multinomial logit regression and compared based on dimensional contribution to overall scale and importance ranking of dimension-levels.ResultsOne thousand five Online respondents and 1,099 face-to-face screened (F2FS) respondents were included in the main comparison of DCE tasks. Online respondents reported more problems on all EQ-5D dimensions except for Mobility. The face validity of the data was similar between comparators. Online respondents had a greater prevalence of potentially suspicious DCE choice patterns ([Online]: 5.3% [F2FS] 2.9%, P = 0.005). When modeled, the relative contribution of each EQ-5D dimension differed between modes of administration. Online respondents weighed Mobility more importantly and Anxiety/Depression less importantly.DiscussionAlthough assessments of face validity were similar between Online and F2FS, modeled preferences differed. Future analyses are needed to clarify whether differences are attributable to preference or data quality variation between modes of data collection.

Project description:BackgroundVaccination can be viewed as comprising the most important defensive barriers to protect susceptible groups from infection. However, vaccine hesitancy for COVID-19 is widespread worldwide.ObjectiveWe aimed to systematically review studies eliciting the COVID-19 vaccine preference using discrete choice experiments.MethodsA literature search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, and CINAHL Plus platforms in April 2023. Search terms included discrete choice experiments, COVID-19, and vaccines and related synonyms. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the study characteristics. Subgroup analyses were performed by factors such as high-income countries and low- and middle-income countries and study period (before, during, and after the pandemic wave). Quality appraisal was performed using the 5-item Purpose, Respondents, Explanation, Findings, and Significance checklist.ResultsThe search yield a total of 623 records, and 47 studies with 53 data points were finally included. Attributes were grouped into 4 categories: outcome, process, cost, and others. The vaccine effectiveness (21/53, 40%) and safety (7/53, 13%) were the most frequently reported and important attributes. Subgroup analyses showed that vaccine effectiveness was the most important attribute, although the preference varied by subgroups. Compared to high-income countries (3/29, 10%), a higher proportion of low- and middle-income countries (4/24, 17%) prioritized safety. As the pandemic progressed, the duration of protection (2/24, 8%) during the pandemic wave and COVID-19 mortality risk (5/25, 20%) after the pandemic wave emerged as 2 of the most important attributes.ConclusionsOur review revealed the critical role of vaccine effectiveness and safety in COVID-19 vaccine preference. However, it should be noticed that preference heterogeneity was observed across subpopulations and may change over time.Trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42023422720; https://tinyurl.com/2etf7ny7.

Project description:IntroductionPrehospital research and evidence-based guidelines (EBGs) have grown in recent decades, yet there is still a paucity of prehospital implementation research. While recent studies have revealed EMS agency leadership perspectives on implementation, the important perspectives and opinions of frontline EMS clinicians regarding implementation have yet to be explored in a systematic approach. The objective of this study was to measure the preferences of EMS clinicians for the process of EBG implementation and whether current agency practices align with those preferences.MethodsThis study was a cross-sectional survey of National Registry of Emergency Medical Technicians registrants. Eligible participants were certified paramedics who were actively practicing EMS clinicians. The survey contained discrete choice experiments (DCEs) for three EBG implementation scenarios and questions about rank order preferences for various aspects of the implementation process. For the DCEs, we used multinomial logistic regression to analyze the implementation preference choices of EMS clinicians, and latent class analysis to classify respondents into groups by their preferences.ResultsA total of 183 respondents completed the survey. Respondents had a median age of 39 years, were 74.9% male, 89.6% White, and 93.4% of non-Hispanic ethnicity. For all three DCE scenarios, respondents were significantly more likely to choose options with hospital feedback and individual-level feedback from EMS agencies. Respondents were significantly less likely to choose options with email/online only education, no feedback from hospitals, and no EMS agency feedback to clinicians. In general, respondents' preferences favored classroom-based training over in-person simulation. For all DCE questions, most respondents (66.2%-77.1%) preferred their survey DCE choice to their agency's current implementation practices. In the rank order preferences, most participants selected "knowledge of the underlying evidence behind the change" as the most important component of the process of implementation.ConclusionsIn this study of EMS clinicians' implementation preferences using DCEs, respondents preferred in-person education, feedback on hospital outcomes, and feedback on their individual performance. However, current practice at EMS agencies rarely matched those expressed EMS clinician preferences. Collectively, these results present opportunities for improving EMS implementation from the EMS clinician perspective.

Project description:BackgroundPrimary care is a key element of health care systems and addresses the main health problems of the population. Due to the demographic change, primary care even gains in importance. The knowledge of the patients' preferences can help policy makers as well as physicians to set priorities in their effort to make health care delivery more responsive to patients' needs. Our objective was to describe which aspects of primary care were included in preference studies and which of them were the most preferred aspects.MethodsIn order to elicit the preferences for primary care, a systematic literature search was conducted. Two researchers searched three electronic databases (PubMed, Scopus, and PsycINFO) and conducted a narrative synthesis. Inclusion criteria were: focus on primary health care delivery, discrete choice experiment as elicitation method, and studies published between 2006 and 2015 in English language.ResultsWe identified 18 studies that elicited either the patients' or the population's preferences for primary care based on a discrete choice experiment. Altogether the studies used 16 structure attributes, ten process attributes and four outcome attributes. The most commonly applied structure attribute was "Waiting time till appointment", the most frequently used process attribute was "Shared decision making / professional's attention paid to your views". "Receiving the 'best' treatment" was the most commonly applied outcome attribute. Process attributes were most often the ones of highest importance for patients or the population. The attributes and attribute levels used in the discrete choice experiments were identified by literature research, qualitative research, expert interviews, or the analysis of policy documents.ConclusionsThe results of the DCE studies show different preferences for primary health care. The diversity of the results may have several reasons, such as the method of analysis, the selection procedure of the attributes and their levels or the specific research question of the study. As the results of discrete choice experiments depend on many different factors, it is important for a better comprehensibility of the studies to transparently report the steps undertaken in a study as well as the interim results regarding the identification of attributes and levels.

Project description:BackgroundTargeted pharmacotherapy has been increasingly applied in cancer treatment due to its breakthroughs. However, the unmet needs of cancer patients are still significant, highlighting the urgency to investigate patient preferences. It is unclear how patients deliberate their choices between different aspects of targeted therapy, including cost, efficacy, and adverse events. Since discrete choice experiments (DCEs) have been widely applied to patient preference elicitation, we reviewed DCEs on targeted therapy for different cancers. We also synthesized evidence on the factors influencing patients' choices and their willingness-to-pay (WTP) for survival when treated by targeted therapy.MethodsWe searched databases, including PubMed, EMBASE and MEDLINE, up to August 16, 2022, supplemented by a reference screening. The attributes from the selected studies were categorized into three groups: outcomes, costs, and process. We also calculated the relative importance of attributes and WTP for survival whenever possible. The purpose, respondents, explanation, findings, significance (PREFS) checklist was used to evaluate the quality of the included DCE studies.ResultsThe review identified 34 eligible studies from 13 countries covering 14 cancers, such as breast, ovarian, kidney, prostate, and skin cancers. It also reveals a rising trend of DCEs on this topic, as most studies were published after 2018. We found that patients placed higher weights on the outcome (e.g., overall survival) and cost attributes than on process attributes. On average, patients were willing to pay $561 (95% confidence interval [CI]: $415-$758) and $716 (95% CI $524-$958) out-of-pocket for a 1-month increase in progression-free survival and overall survival, respectively. PREFS scores of the 34 studies ranged from 2 to 4, with a mean of 3.38 (SD: 0.65), suggesting a reasonable quality based on the checklist. However, most studies (n = 32, 94%) did not assess the impact of non-responses on the results.ConclusionsThis is the first systematic review focusing on patient preferences for targeted cancer therapy. We showcased novel approaches for evidence synthesis of DCE results, especially the attribute relative importance and WTP. The results may inform stakeholders about patient preferences toward targeted therapy and their WTP estimates. More studies with improved study design and quality are warranted to generate more robust evidence to assist decision making.

Dataset Information

Do patients' preferences prevail in hospital selection?: a comparison between discrete choice experiments and revealed hospital choice.

Background

Methods

Results

Discussion

Publications

Do patients' preferences prevail in hospital selection?: a comparison between discrete choice experiments and revealed hospital choice.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets