Dataset Information

Patients' preferences for primary health care - a systematic literature review of discrete choice experiments.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Primary 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.

Methods

In 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.

Results

We 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.

Conclusions

The 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.

SUBMITTER: Kleij KS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5505038 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Patients' preferences for primary health care - a systematic literature review of discrete choice experiments.

Kleij Kim-Sarah KS Tangermann Ulla U Amelung Volker E VE Krauth Christian C

BMC health services research 20170711 1

<h4>Background</h4>Primary 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 ...[more]

PMID: 28697796

Similar Datasets

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: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.

Project description:ObjectivesTo review studies eliciting patient and healthcare provider preferences for healthcare interventions using discrete choice experiments (DCEs) to (1) review the methodology to evaluate similarities, differences, rigour of designs and whether comparisons are made at the aggregate level or account for individual heterogeneity; and (2) quantify the extent to which they demonstrate concordance of patient and healthcare provider preferences.MethodsA systematic review searching Medline, EMBASE, Econlit, PsycINFO and Web of Science for DCEs using patient and healthcare providers.Inclusion criteriapeer-reviewed; complete empiric text in English from 1995 to 31July 2015; discussing a healthcare-related topic; DCE methodology; comparing patients and healthcare providers.DesignSystematic review.ResultsWe identified 38 papers exploring 16 interventions in 26 diseases/indications. Methods to analyse results, determine concordance between patient and physician values, and explore heterogeneity varied considerably between studies. The majority of studies we reviewed found more evidence of mixed concordance and discordance (n=28) or discordance of patient and healthcare provider preferences (n=12) than of concordant preferences (n=4). A synthesis of concordance suggested that healthcare providers rank structure and outcome attributes more highly than patients, while patients rank process attributes more highly than healthcare providers.ConclusionsDiscordant patient and healthcare provider preferences for different attributes of healthcare interventions are common. Concordance varies according to whether attributes are processes, structures or outcomes, and therefore determining preference concordance should consider all aspects jointly and not a binary outcome. DCE studies provide excellent opportunities to assess value concordance between patients and providers, but assessment of concordance was limited by a lack of consistency in the approaches used and consideration of heterogeneity of preferences. Future DCEs assessing concordance should fully report the framing of the questions and investigate the heterogeneity of preferences within groups and how these compare.

Project description:BackgroundDiscrete choice experiments have become a popular study design to study the labour market preferences of health workers. Discrete choice experiments in health, however, have been criticised for lagging behind best practice and there are specific methodological considerations for those focused on job choices. We performed a systematic review of the application of discrete choice experiments to inform health workforce policy.MethodsWe searched for discrete choice experiments that examined the labour market preferences of health workers, including doctors, nurses, allied health professionals, mid-level and community health workers. We searched Medline, Embase, Global Health, other databases and grey literature repositories with no limits on date or language and contacted 44 experts. Features of choice task and experimental design, conduct and analysis of included studies were assessed against best practice. An assessment of validity was undertaken for all studies, with a comparison of results from those with low risk of bias and a similar objective and context.ResultsTwenty-seven studies were included, with over half set in low- and middle-income countries. There were more studies published in the last four years than the previous ten years. Doctors or medical students were the most studied cadre. Studies frequently pooled results from heterogeneous subgroups or extrapolated these results to the general population. Only one third of studies included an opt-out option, despite all health workers having the option to exit the labour market. Just five studies combined results with cost data to assess the cost effectiveness of various policy options. Comparison of results from similar studies broadly showed the importance of bonus payments and postgraduate training opportunities and the unpopularity of time commitments for the uptake of rural posts.ConclusionsThis is the first systematic review of discrete choice experiments in human resources for health. We identified specific issues relating to this application of which practitioners should be aware to ensure robust results. In particular, there is a need for more defined target populations and increased synthesis with cost data. Research on a wider range of health workers and the generalisability of results would be welcome to better inform policy.

Project description:BackgroundDiscrete choice experiments (DCEs) are increasingly used in health state valuation studies.ObjectiveThis systematic review updates the progress and new findings of DCE studies in the health state valuation, covering the period since the review of June 2018 to November 2022. The review reports the methods that are currently being used in DCE studies to value health and study design characteristics, and, for the first time, reviews DCE health state valuation studies published in the Chinese language.MethodsEnglish language databases PubMed and Cochrane, and Chinese language databases Wanfang and CNKI were searched using the self-developed search terms. Health state valuation or methodology study papers were included if the study used DCE data to generate a value set for a preference-based measure. Key information extracted included DCE study design strategies applied, methods for anchoring the latent coefficient on to a 0-1 QALY scale and data analysis methods.ResultsSixty-five studies were included; one Chinese language publication and 64 English language publications. The number of health state valuation studies using DCE has rapidly increased in recent years and these have been conducted in more countries than prior to 2018. Wide usage of DCE with duration attributes, D-efficient design and models accounting for heterogeneity has continued in recent years. Although more methodological consensus has been found than in studies conducted prior to 2018, this consensus may be driven by valuation studies for common measures with an international protocol (the 'model' valuation research). Valuing long measures with well-being attributes attracted attention and more realistic design strategies (e.g., inconstant time preference, efficient design and implausible states design) were identified. However, more qualitative and quantitative methodology study is still necessary to evaluate the effect of those new methods.ConclusionsThe use of DCEs in health state valuation continues to grow dramatically and the methodology progress makes the method more reliable and pragmatic. However, study design is driven by international protocols and method selection is not always justified. There is no gold standard for DCE design, presentation format or anchoring method. More qualitative and quantitative methodology study is recommended to evaluate the effect of new methods before researchers make methodology decisions.

Dataset Information

Patients' preferences for primary health care - a systematic literature review of discrete choice experiments.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Patients' preferences for primary health care - a systematic literature review of discrete choice experiments.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets