Literature DB >> 12829556

What do hospital consultants value about their jobs? A discrete choice experiment.

Cristina Ubach1, Anthony Scott, Fiona French, Morag Awramenko, Gillian Needham.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To examine the strength of hospital consultants' preferences for various aspects of their work.
DESIGN: Questionnaire survey including a discrete choice experiment.
SETTING: NHS Scotland. PARTICIPANTS: 2923 hospital consultants in Scotland. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Monetary valuations or prices for each job characteristic, based on consultants' willingness to pay and willingness to accept extra income for a change in each job characteristic, calculated from regression coefficients.
RESULTS: The response rate was 61% (1793 respondents). Being on call was the most important attribute, as consultants would need to be compensated up to pound 18,000 (30% of their average net income) (P < 0.001) for a high on-call workload. Compensation of up to pound 9700 (16% of their net income) (P < 0.001) would be required for consultants to forgo opportunities to undertake non-NHS work. Consultants would be willing to accept pound 7000 (12% of net income) (P < 0.001) in compensation for fair rather than good working relationships with staff, and pound 6500 (11% of net income) (P < 0.001) to compensate them for a shortage of staff. The least important characteristic was hours of work, with pound 562 per year (0.9% of their net income) (P < 0.001) required to induce consultants to work one extra hour per week. These preferences also varied among specific subgroups of consultants.
CONCLUSIONS: Important information on consultants' strength of preferences for characteristics of their job should be used to help to address recruitment and retention problems. Consultants would require increased payment to cover more intensive on-call commitments. Other aspects of working conditions would require smaller increases.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12829556      PMCID: PMC162262          DOI: 10.1136/bmj.326.7404.1432

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  BMJ        ISSN: 0959-8138


  6 in total

1.  Using conjoint analysis to elicit preferences for health care.

Authors:  M Ryan; S Farrar
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2000-06-03

2.  The use of conjoint analysis to elicit willingness-to-pay values. Proceed with caution?

Authors:  J Ratcliffe
Journal:  Int J Technol Assess Health Care       Date:  2000       Impact factor: 2.188

3.  Eliciting GPs' preferences for pecuniary and non-pecuniary job characteristics.

Authors:  A Scott
Journal:  J Health Econ       Date:  2001-05       Impact factor: 3.883

4.  Design techniques for stated preference methods in health economics.

Authors:  Fredrik Carlsson; Peter Martinsson
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  2003-04       Impact factor: 3.046

5.  Conjoint analysis. The cost variable: an Achilles' heel?

Authors:  Ulla Slothuus Skjoldborg; Dorte Gyrd-Hansen
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  2003-06       Impact factor: 3.046

Review 6.  Threats to the estimation of benefit: are preference elicitation methods accurate?

Authors:  Andrew J Lloyd
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  2003-05       Impact factor: 3.046

  6 in total
  24 in total

1.  Discrete choice experiments in health care.

Authors:  Mandy Ryan
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2004-02-14

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

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

3.  Preferences for general practice jobs: a survey of principals and sessional GPs.

Authors:  Sarah Wordsworth; Diane Skåtun; Anthony Scott; Fiona French
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2004-10       Impact factor: 5.386

4.  What do physicians dislike about managed care? Evidence from a choice experiment.

Authors:  Maurus Rischatsch; Peter Zweifel
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2012-06-21

5.  Chronic pain patients' treatment preferences: a discrete-choice experiment.

Authors:  Axel C Mühlbacher; Uwe Junker; Christin Juhnke; Edgar Stemmler; Thomas Kohlmann; Friedhelm Leverkus; Matthias Nübling
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2014-06-21

6.  Regional distribution of physicians: the role of comprehensive private health insurance in Germany.

Authors:  Leonie Sundmacher; Susanne Ozegowski
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2015-04-30

7.  Junior doctors' medical specialty and practice location choice: simulating policies to overcome regional inequalities.

Authors:  Pedro Ramos; Hélio Alves; Paulo Guimarães; Maria A Ferreira
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2016-11-03

8.  The "medicine in Australia: balancing employment and life (MABEL)" longitudinal survey--protocol and baseline data for a prospective cohort study of Australian doctors' workforce participation.

Authors:  Catherine M Joyce; Anthony Scott; Sung-Hee Jeon; John Humphreys; Guyonne Kalb; Julia Witt; Anne Leahy
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2010-02-25       Impact factor: 2.655

9.  What Influences Patients' Decisions When Choosing a Health Care Provider? Measuring Preferences of Patients with Knee Arthrosis, Chronic Depression, or Alzheimer's Disease, Using Discrete Choice Experiments.

Authors:  Stef Groenewoud; N Job A Van Exel; Ana Bobinac; Marc Berg; Robbert Huijsman; Elly A Stolk
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2015-04-09       Impact factor: 3.402

10.  A review of the application and contribution of discrete choice experiments to inform human resources policy interventions.

Authors:  Mylene Lagarde; Duane Blaauw
Journal:  Hum Resour Health       Date:  2009-07-24
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.