Literature DB >> 22272999

Using conjoint analysis to model the preferences of different patient segments for attributes of patient-centered care.

Charles E Cunningham1, Ken Deal, Heather Rimas, Heather Campbell, Ann Russell, Jennifer Henderson, Anne Matheson, Blake Melnick.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: A consensus regarding the components of a patient-centered approach to healthcare does not exist. Although patient-centered care should be predicated on patient preferences, existing models provide little evidence regarding the relative importance of different care processes to patients themselves.
OBJECTIVE: To involve patients in the design of a model of patient-centered care for a corporation of Canadian teaching hospitals.
METHODS: Using themes from focus groups and interviews, a conjoint survey was developed comprising 14 four-level patient-centered care attributes. Sawtooth Software's Choice Based Conjoint module (version 2.6.7) was used to design the survey. Each participant completed 15 choice tasks, each task presenting a choice between three hospitals described by a different combination of patient-centered care attribute levels. Latent class analysis was used to identify segments of participants with similar patient-centered care choice patterns. Randomized First Choice simulations were used to predict the percentage of participants in each segment who would choose different approaches to improving patient-centered care.Representative hospital service users were recruited from a corporation of five Canadian teaching hospitals serving a regional population of 2.2 million.
RESULTS: A total of 508 patients and family members of children completed a choice-based conjoint survey. Latent class analysis revealed two segments: an informed care segment and a convenient care segment. Participants in the informed care segment (71.3% of the sample) were more likely to have higher education, be non-immigrants, speak English as a first language, and be outpatients or family members.The information needed to understand health concerns, an opportunity to learn health improvement skills, teams that communicated effectively, short waiting times, and collaborative treatment planning were more important to the informed care segment than to the convenient care segment. Convenient settings, a welcoming environment, and ease of internal access exerted a greater influence on the choices made by the convenient care segment. Both segments preferred hospitals that provided health information and gave prompt feedback on patient progress.
CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that many patients would exchange an increase in waiting times for prompt feedback, information, and the skills to improve their health.

Entities:  

Year:  2008        PMID: 22272999     DOI: 10.2165/1312067-200801040-00013

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Patient        ISSN: 1178-1653            Impact factor:   3.883


  65 in total

1.  Assessment of group versus individual diabetes education: a randomized study.

Authors:  Patti L Rickheim; Todd W Weaver; Jill L Flader; David M Kendall
Journal:  Diabetes Care       Date:  2002-02       Impact factor: 19.112

Review 2.  Evolving general practice consultation in Britain: issues of length and context.

Authors:  George K Freeman; John P Horder; John G R Howie; A Pali Hungin; Alison P Hill; Nayan C Shah; Andrew Wilson
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2002-04-13

3.  Canada's new prime minister vows to cut surgery wait lists. Martin considers point-scoring systems to rationalise and speed scheduling.

Authors:  Paul Webster
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2004-01-17       Impact factor: 79.321

4.  Error reduction and performance improvement in the emergency department through formal teamwork training: evaluation results of the MedTeams project.

Authors:  John C Morey; Robert Simon; Gregory D Jay; Robert L Wears; Mary Salisbury; Kimberly A Dukes; Scott D Berns
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2002-12       Impact factor: 3.402

5.  Future challenges for the economic evaluation of healthcare: patient preferences, risk attitudes and beyond.

Authors:  John F P Bridges
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2005       Impact factor: 4.981

6.  Relative influence of antibiotic therapy attributes on physician choice in treating acute uncomplicated pyelonephritis.

Authors:  Jessina C McGregor; Anthony D Harris; Jon P Furuno; Douglas D Bradham; Eli N Perencevich
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2007-06-21       Impact factor: 2.583

7.  What role do patients wish to play in treatment decision making?

Authors:  R B Deber; N Kraetschmer; J Irvine
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  1996-07-08

8.  Primary care and health system performance: adults' experiences in five countries.

Authors:  Cathy Schoen; Robin Osborn; Phuong Trang Huynh; Michelle Doty; Karen Davis; Kinga Zapert; Jordon Peugh
Journal:  Health Aff (Millwood)       Date:  2004 Jul-Dec       Impact factor: 6.301

9.  The relative importance of physician communication, participatory decision making, and patient understanding in diabetes self-management.

Authors:  Michele Heisler; Reynard R Bouknight; Rodney A Hayward; Dylan M Smith; Eve A Kerr
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2002-04       Impact factor: 5.128

10.  Patient and visit characteristics related to physicians' participatory decision-making style. Results from the Medical Outcomes Study.

Authors:  S H Kaplan; B Gandek; S Greenfield; W Rogers; J E Ware
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1995-12       Impact factor: 2.983

View more
  15 in total

1.  Conjoint analysis: a 'new' way to evaluate patients' preferences.

Authors:  Sarah T Hawley
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2008-12-01       Impact factor: 3.883

2.  Why not ask?: measuring patient preferences for healthcare decision making.

Authors:  F Reed Johnson
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2008-12-01       Impact factor: 3.883

3.  Elicitation of ostomy pouch preferences: a discrete-choice experiment.

Authors:  Ole Bonnichsen
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2011       Impact factor: 3.883

4.  Shared Decision Making: From Decision Science to Data Science.

Authors:  Azza Shaoibi; Brian Neelon; Leslie A Lenert
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2020-02-06       Impact factor: 2.583

5.  Using Latent Class Analysis to Model Preference Heterogeneity in Health: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Mo Zhou; Winter Maxwell Thayer; John F P Bridges
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2018-02       Impact factor: 4.981

6.  A test of concordance between patient and psychiatrist valuations of multiple treatment goals for schizophrenia.

Authors:  John F P Bridges; Lara Slawik; Annette Schmeding; Jens Reimer; Dieter Naber; Olaf Kuhnigk
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2011-06-14       Impact factor: 3.377

7.  A Comparison of Methods for Capturing Patient Preferences for Delivery of Mental Health Services to Low-Income Hispanics Engaged in Primary Care.

Authors:  Patricia M Herman; Maia Ingram; Charles E Cunningham; Heather Rimas; Lucy Murrieta; Kenneth Schachter; Jill Guernsey de Zapien; Scott C Carvajal
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2016-08       Impact factor: 3.883

8.  Modeling organizational justice improvements in a pediatric health service : a discrete-choice conjoint experiment.

Authors:  Charles E Cunningham; Linda Kostrzewa; Heather Rimas; Yvonne Chen; Ken Deal; Susan Blatz; Alida Bowman; Don H Buchanan; Randy Calvert; Barbara Jennings
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2013       Impact factor: 3.883

9.  Adaptive choice-based conjoint analysis: a new patient-centered approach to the assessment of health service preferences.

Authors:  Charles E Cunningham; Ken Deal; Yvonne Chen
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2010-12-01       Impact factor: 3.883

10.  Modeling mental health information preferences during the early adult years: a discrete choice conjoint experiment.

Authors:  Charles E Cunningham; John R Walker; John D Eastwood; Henny Westra; Heather Rimas; Yvonne Chen; Madalyn Marcus; Richard P Swinson; Keyna Bracken
Journal:  J Health Commun       Date:  2013-11-22
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.