Novel application of a discrete choice experiment to identify preferences for a national healthcare-associated infection surveillance programme: A cross-sectional study

Objective: To identify key stakeholder preferences and priorities when considering a national healthcare-associated infection (HAI) surveillance programme through the use of a discrete choice experiment (DCE). Setting: Australia does not have a national HAI surveillance programme. An online web-based DCE was developed and made available to participants in Australia. Participants: A sample of 184 purposively selected healthcare workers based on their senior leadership role in infection prevention in Australia. Primary and secondary outcomes: A DCE requiring respondents to select 1 HAI surveillance programme over another based on 5 different characteristics (or attributes) in repeated hypothetical scenarios. Data were analysed using a mixed logit model to evaluate preferences and identify the relative importance of each attribute. Results: A total of 122 participants completed the survey (response rate 66%) over a 5-week period. Excluding 22 who mismatched a duplicate choice scenario, analysis was conducted on 100 responses. The key findings included: 72% of stakeholders exhibited a preference for a surveillance programme with continuous mandatory core components (mean coefficient 0.640 (p<0.01)), 65% for a standard surveillance protocol where patient-level data are collected on infected and non-infected patients (mean coefficient 0.641 (p<0.01)), and 92% for hospital-level data that are publicly reported on a website and not associated with financial penalties (mean coefficient 1.663 (p<0.01)). Conclusions: The use of the DCE has provided a unique insight to key stakeholder priorities when considering a national HAI surveillance programme. The application of a DCE offers a meaningful method to explore and quantify preferences in this setting.

Valuing a Natura 2000 network site to inform land use options using a discrete choice experiment: An illustration from the Basque Country

One of the main problems that public institutions face in the management of protected areas, such as the European Natura 2000 network, is determining how to design and implement sustainable management plans that account for the wide range of marketed and non-marketed benefits they provide to society. This paper presents an application of a stated preference valuation approach aimed at evaluating the social preferences of the population of the Basque Country, Spain, for the key attributes of a regional Natura 2000 network site. According to our results, individuals’ willingness-to-pay (WTP) is higher for attributes associated with non-use values (native tree species and biodiversity conservation) than for attributes associated with use values (agricultural development and commercial forestry). The paper concludes that management policies related to Natura 2000 network sites should account for both for the importance of non-use values and the heterogeneity of the population's preferences in order to minimize potential land use conflicts.

Preferences for a third-trimester ultrasound scan in a low-risk obstetric population: a discrete choice experiment

Objective: Establish maternal preferences for a third-trimester ultrasound scan in a healthy, low-risk pregnant population.

Design: Cross-sectional study incorporating a discrete choice experiment.

Setting: A large, urban maternity hospital in Northern Ireland.

Participants: One hundred and forty-six women in their second trimester of pregnancy.

Methods: A discrete choice experiment was designed to elicit preferences for four attributes of a third-trimester ultrasound scan: health-care professional conducting the scan, detection rate for abnormal foetal growth, provision of non-medical information, cost. Additional data collected included age, marital status, socio-economic status, obstetric history, pregnancy-specific stress levels, perceived health and whether pregnancy was planned. Analysis was undertaken using a mixed logit model with interaction effects.

Main outcome measures: Women's preferences for, and trade-offs between, the attributes of a hypothetical scan and indirect willingness-to-pay estimates.

Results: Women had significant positive preference for higher rate of detection, lower cost and provision of non-medical information, with no significant value placed on scan operator. Interaction effects revealed subgroups that valued the scan most: women experiencing their first pregnancy, women reporting higher levels of stress, an adverse obstetric history and older women.

Conclusions: Women were able to trade on aspects of care and place relative importance on clinical, non-clinical outcomes and processes of service delivery, thus highlighting the potential of using health utilities in the development of services from a clinical, economic and social perspective. Specifically, maternal preferences exhibited provide valuable information for designing a randomized trial of effectiveness and insight for clinical and policy decision makers to inform woman-centred care.

A protocol for a discrete choice experiment: understanding preferences of patients with cancer towards their cancer care across metropolitan and rural regions in Australia.

Medical decision-making in oncology is a complicated process and to date there are few studies examining how patients with cancer make choices with respect to different features of their care. It is also unknown whether patient choices vary by geographical location and how location could account for observed rural and metropolitan cancer differences. This paper describes an ongoing study that aims to (1) examine patient and healthcare-related factors that influence choices of patients with cancer; (2) measure and quantify preferences of patients with cancer towards cancer care using a discrete choice experiment (DCE) and (3) explore preference heterogeneity between metropolitan and rural locations.

Patient and nurse preferences for nurse handover-using preferences to inform policy: a discrete choice experiment protocol

INTRODUCTION: Nursing bedside handover in hospital has been identified as an opportunity to involve patients and promote patient-centred care. It is important to consider the preferences of both patients and nurses when implementing bedside handover to maximise the successful uptake of this policy. We outline a study which aims to (1) identify, compare and contrast the preferences for various aspects of handover common to nurses and patients while accounting for other factors, such as the time constraints of nurses that may influence these preferences.; (2) identify opportunities for nurses to better involve patients in bedside handover and (3) identify patient and nurse preferences that may challenge the full implementation of bedside handover in the acute medical setting. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We outline the protocol for a discrete choice experiment (DCE) which uses a survey design common to both patients and nurses. We describe the qualitative and pilot work undertaken to design the DCE. We use a D-efficient design which is informed by prior coefficients collected during the pilot phase. We also discuss the face-to-face administration of this survey in a population of acutely unwell, hospitalised patients and describe how data collection challenges have been informed by our pilot phase. Mixed multinomial logit regression analysis will be used to estimate the final results. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has been approved by a university ethics committee as well as two participating hospital ethics committees. Results will be used within a knowledge translation framework to inform any strategies that can be used by nursing staff to improve the uptake of bedside handover. Results will also be disseminated via peer-reviewed journal articles and will be presented at national and international conferences.

A discrete choice experiment to examine the preferences of patients with cancer and their willingness to pay for different types of health care appointments

BACKGROUND: This study sought to understand the preferences of patients with cancer and the trade-offs between appointment attributes using discrete choice experiment (DCE). METHODS AND STUDY DESIGN: Patients with cancer at 3 hospitals completed a self-administered DCE. Each scenario described 6 attributes: expertise of health care professionals (HCPs), familiarity of doctors with patients' medical history, waiting time, accompaniment by family/friends, travel time, and out-of-pocket costs. Patient preferences were estimated using logistic regression. Willingness to pay (WTP) estimates were derived from regression coefficients. RESULTS: Of 512 patients contacted, 185 returned the questionnaire. The mean age was 61 years, and 60% of respondents were female. The mean time since cancer diagnosis was 34 months, 90% had received treatment; and 61% had early-stage disease. The most important attributes were expertise and familiarity of doctors with patients' medical history; distance traveled was least likely to influence patient preferences. The WTP analysis estimated that patients were willing to pay $680 (95% CI, 470-891) for an appointment with a specialist, $571 (95% CI, 388-754) for doctors familiar with their history, $422 (95% CI, 262-582) for shorter waiting times, $399 (95% CI, 249-549) to be accompanied by family/friends, and $301 (95% CI, 162-441) for shorter traveling times. Male patients had a stronger preference for accompaniment by family/friends. The expertise of HCP was the most important attribute for patients regardless of geographic remoteness. CONCLUSIONS: Our study can assist the development of patient-centered health care models that improve patient access to experienced HCPs, support the role of primary care providers during the cancer journey, and educate patients about the roles of non-oncology HCPs to cope with increasing demand for cancer care.

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. ^

Economic considerations and patients’ preferences affect treatment selection for rheumatoid arthritis patients : A discrete choice experiment among European rheumatologists

Peer reviewed

Preferences of Hungarian consumers for quality, access and price attributes of health care services — result of a discrete choice experiment

In 2010, a household survey was carried out in Hungary among 1037 respondents to study consumer preferences and willingness to pay for health care services. In this paper, we use the data from the discrete choice experiments included in the survey, to elicit the preferences of health care consumers about the choice of health care providers. Regression analysis is used to estimate the effect of the improvement of service attributes (quality, access, and price) on patients’ choice, as well as the differences among the socio-demographic groups. We also estimate the marginal willingness to pay for the improvement in attribute levels by calculating marginal rates of substitution. The results show that respondents from a village or the capital, with low education and bad health status are more driven by the changes in the price attribute when choosing between health care providers. Respondents value the good skills and reputation of the physician and the attitude of the personnel most, followed by modern equipment and maintenance of the office/hospital. Access attributes (travelling and waiting time) are less important. The method of discrete choice experiment is useful to reveal patients’ preferences, and might support the development of an evidence-based and sustainable health policy on patient payments.

Trading between perceived risks and benefits related to biosimilar biological treatment in Crohn’s disease; discrete choice experiment among gastroenterologists

Objective: The objective of the study is to explore preferences of gastroenterologists for biosimilar drugs in Crohn’s Disease and reveal trade-offs between the perceived risks and benefits related to biosimilar drugs. Method: Discrete choice experiment was carried out involving 51 Hungarian gastroenterologists in May, 2014. The following attributes were used to describe hypothetical choice sets: 1) type of the treatment (biosimilar/originator) 2) severity of disease 3) availability of continuous medicine supply 4) frequency of the efficacy check-ups. Multinomial logit model was used to differentiate between three attitude types: 1) always opting for the originator 2) willing to consider biosimilar for biological-naïve patients only 3) willing to consider biosimilar treatment for both types of patients. Conditional logit model was used to estimate the probabilities of choosing a given profile. Results: Men, senior consultants, working in IBD center and treating more patients are more likely to willing to consider biosimilar for biological-naïve patients only. Treatment type (originator/biosimilar) was the most important determinant of choice for patients already treated with biologicals, and the availability of continuous medicine supply in the case biological-naïve patients. The probabilities of choosing the biosimilar with all the benefits offered over the originator under current reimbursement conditions are 89% vs 11% for new patients, and 44% vs 56% for patients already treated with biological. Conclusions: Gastroenterologists were willing to trade between perceived risks and benefits of biosimilars. The continuous medical supply would be one of the major benefits of biosimilars. However, benefits offered in the scenarios do not compensate for the change from the originator to the biosimilar treatment of patients already treated with biologicals.

What, who and when? Incorporating a discrete choice experiment into an economic evaluation

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: The Medman study was funded by the Department of Health for England and Wales and managed by a collaboration of the National Pharmaceutical Association, the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain, the Company Chemist Association and the Co-operative Pharmacy Technical Panel, led by the Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating Committee. The research in this paper was undertaken while the lead author MT was undertaking a doctoral research fellowship jointly funded by the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) and the Medical Research Council (MRC). The Health Economics Research Unit (HERU), University of Aberdeen is funded by the Chief Scientific Office of the Scottish Government Health and Social Care Directorate.

What do UK doctors in training value in a post? : A discrete choice experiment

© 2016 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Funding: our thanks go to NHS Education for Scotland for funding this programme of work.

Discrete choice experiment response rates : A meta-analysis

Funding: Verity Watson acknowledges financial support from the Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government Health and Social Care Directorates. The funders had no role in the study design; in the collection, analysis and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; and in the decision to submit the article for publication. Acknowledgements: We thank Marjon van der Pol, Mandy Ryan and Rainer Schulz for helpful comments and suggestions throughout the project. We also thank Karen Gerard and Tim Bolt for comparing the results of our systematic review with a similar systematic review they are conducting at the same time. We would like to thank Douglas Olley for excellent research assistance.