Minority preferences and disease types for non-emergent emergency department usage in a CHIP population

Background. Of the over five million annual pediatric visits to U.S. emergency departments, one-third to one-half are for non-emergent conditions. Minorities are more likely to utilize the emergency department (ED) for non-emergent conditions. Very little research has analyzed the role of illness type, perceived need, or family preferences in explaining this disparity. ^ Objectives. This study examined racial-ethnic differences in preferences for care among non-emergent users of the ED. ^ Research design. A random selection of pediatric non-emergent ED users within a single CHIP managed care plan were surveyed regarding attitudes and health care preferences. Preferences for ED utilization were analyzed by racial-ethnic category, controlling for illness type, child and guardian age, education level, language, and perceived need. ^ Results. A total of 250 families were surveyed. Most respondents reported having a regular doctor, satisfaction with their physician, and ready access to their physician. Fifteen percent of White, 39% of Hispanic, and 38% of Black families reported they preferred the emergency department for ill care. In multivariate analysis, Whites families were significantly less likely to prefer the emergency department for ill visits (odds ratio, 0.12; 95% confidence interval 0.03-0.55) compared to Blacks and Hispanics. ^ Conclusions. Racial-ethnic disparities in non-emergent ED utilization may be partially explained by different preferences for care. ^ Key words: children, emergency department, preferences for care, disparities ^

Community preferences for cancer pain health states

The study's objective was to assess the reliability, acceptability, and concordance of cancer pain health states when using two utility assessment methods—simple rank order (RO) and numerical analogue scale (NAS). Additional aims were to describe the preferences of Hispanic and non-Hispanic community members toward cancer pain health states and identify predictors affecting these preferences. In this descriptive, cross-sectional study, telephone calls were made to a quota sample of 1,387 households that had telephone numbers listed for the Houston and surrounding Harris County area. Subjects (n = 302) within the general population completed a 20 minute telephone interview in their preferred language—English or Spanish. Study respondents assessed six cancer pain health states consisting of three attributes, pain intensity, presence of side effects, and interference with daily function. ^ Overall, the numerical analogue scale (NAS) had better test-retest reliability. Respondents were able to clearly distinguish the worst health state using both methods, but were not able to do so as clearly for less severe health states. Acceptability and subjects' ability to answer questions and complete the survey was high. Missing responses were low across methods for all health states. Concordance in the health state rankings was higher for the most severe health state in the non-Hispanic group, those in fair to poor health, males, and those $30,000 or greater income. Preferences for the less severe health states did not show much variation across methods. No significant predictors for health states were found except for ethnicity for a less severe health state when using the rank order method. ^ We found that the rank order (RO) and numerical analogue scale (NAS) are both robust in ranking the more severe cancer pain health states, e.g., moderate pain with three side effects. This study documents that RO and NAS methods to assess cancer pain preferences through a telephone-based approach among a relative diverse community dwelling, non-patient population for cancer pain health states represented a relatively valid and acceptable approach. ^

Patients' preferences for a prostate cancer consultation, a discrete choice experiment

Four basic medical decision making models are commonly discussed in the literature in reference to physician-patient interactions. All fall short in their attempt to capture the nuances of physician-patient interactions, and none satisfactorily address patients' preferences for communication and other attributes of care. Prostate cancer consultations are one setting where preferences matter and are likely to vary among patients. Fortunately, discrete choice experiments are capable of casting light on patients' preferences for communication and other attributes of value that make up a consultation before the consultation occurs, which is crucial if patients are to derive the most utility from the process of reaching a decision as well as the decision itself. The results of my dissertation provide strong support to the notion that patients, at least in the hypothetical setting of a DCE, have identifiable preferences for the attributes of a prostate cancer consultation and that those preferences are capable of being elicited before a consultation takes place. Further, patients' willingness-to-pay for the non-cost attributes of the consultation is surprisingly robust to a variety of individual level variables of interest. ^