Literature DB >> 11467272

Vascular patients' preferences for local treatment: an application of conjoint analysis.

P Shackley1, R Slack, J Michaels.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To investigate whether and to what extent vascular patients are willing to trade expected health outcomes for improvements in non-health benefits, such as the availability of local services, in the provision of peripheral vascular surgery.
METHODS: Conjoint analysis was used to elicit patient preferences via a mailed questionnaire. Respondents were asked to consider pairwise descriptions of vascular services described in terms of a number of key attributes and asked to indicate which scenario description they preferred. Multivariate regression analysis was used to estimate the relative importance of the attributes to respondents.
RESULTS: Of the 339 patients invited to participate, 161 (47%) returned a completed questionnaire, although 36 (11%) were found to be internally inconsistent and could not be used, leaving 125 (36%) for analysis. An unexpected problem arose with respect to the design of the conjoint analysis questionnaire. Specifically, three of the attributes in the regression model were found to be collinear. The source of this problem, how it was overcome and how it can be avoided in future studies is discussed. The results of the regression analysis indicated that the patients who responded had a preference for local treatment to the extent that they were willing to incur increased risks of perioperative mortality and amputation to receive treatment at their local hospital. These results are discussed in connection with those from a different study which elicited patient preferences for local treatment using a standard gamble technique.
CONCLUSIONS: Policy-makers, when considering the potential benefits of regionalising health care, should seek to elicit the preferences of those patients who will be affected by the reorganisation.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11467272     DOI: 10.1258/1355819011927404

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Health Serv Res Policy        ISSN: 1355-8196


  11 in total

1.  Discrete choice experiments in health economics. For better or for worse?

Authors:  Stirling Bryan; Paul Dolan
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2004-10

2.  Developing and validating a model to predict the success of an IHCS implementation: the Readiness for Implementation Model.

Authors:  Kuang-Yi Wen; David H Gustafson; Robert P Hawkins; Patricia F Brennan; Susan Dinauer; Pauley R Johnson; Tracy Siegler
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2010 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 4.497

3.  Critical limb ischemia and its impact on patient health preferences and quality of life-an international study.

Authors:  Giovanni Pisa; Thomas Reinhold; Eliot Obi-Tabot; Maria Bodoria; Bernd Brüggenjürgen
Journal:  Int J Angiol       Date:  2012-09

Review 4.  Risk as an attribute in discrete choice experiments: a systematic review of the literature.

Authors:  Mark Harrison; Dan Rigby; Caroline Vass; Terry Flynn; Jordan Louviere; Katherine Payne
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2014       Impact factor: 3.883

Review 5.  Valuing Meta-Health Effects for Use in Economic Evaluations to Inform Reimbursement Decisions: A Review of the Evidence.

Authors:  Richard De Abreu Lourenco; Marion Haas; Jane Hall; Rosalie Viney
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2017-03       Impact factor: 4.981

6.  The Voice of the Patient Methodology: A Novel Mixed-Methods Approach to Identifying Treatment Goals for Men with Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  Christopher S Saigal; Sylvia I Lambrechts; V Seenu Srinivasan; Ely Dahan
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2017-06       Impact factor: 3.883

Review 7.  A Systematic Review of the Factors that Patients Use to Choose their Surgeon.

Authors:  Alexander T Yahanda; Kelly J Lafaro; Gaya Spolverato; Timothy M Pawlik
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2016-01       Impact factor: 3.352

8.  Race, treatment preferences, and hospice enrollment: eligibility criteria may exclude patients with the greatest needs for care.

Authors:  Jessica Fishman; Peter O'Dwyer; Hien L Lu; Hope R Henderson; Hope Henderson; David A Asch; David J Casarett
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2009-02-01       Impact factor: 6.860

9.  The terrible choice: re-evaluating hospice eligibility criteria for cancer.

Authors:  David J Casarett; Jessica M Fishman; Hien L Lu; Peter J O'Dwyer; Frances K Barg; Mary D Naylor; David A Asch
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2008-12-29       Impact factor: 44.544

Review 10.  Conceptualising 'Benefits Beyond Health' in the Context of the Quality-Adjusted Life-Year: A Critical Interpretive Synthesis.

Authors:  Lidia Engel; Stirling Bryan; David G T Whitehurst
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2021-08-23       Impact factor: 4.981

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.