Literature DB >> 23527851

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

Fiona A Lynn1, Grainne E Crealey2, Fiona A Alderdice1, James C McElnay3.   

Abstract

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.
© 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  discrete choice experiment; pregnancy; ultrasound scan; women's preferences

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23527851      PMCID: PMC5060810          DOI: 10.1111/hex.12062

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Health Expect        ISSN: 1369-6513            Impact factor:   3.377


  29 in total

Review 1.  Intrauterine growth restriction.

Authors:  Robert Resnik
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2002-03       Impact factor: 7.661

2.  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

3.  'Irrational' stated preferences: a quantitative and qualitative investigation.

Authors:  Fernando San Miguel; Mandy Ryan; Mabelle Amaya-Amaya
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  2005-03       Impact factor: 3.046

4.  Using discrete choice experiments within a cost-benefit analysis framework: some considerations.

Authors:  Emma McIntosh
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2006       Impact factor: 4.981

5.  Rationalising the 'irrational': a think aloud study of discrete choice experiment responses.

Authors:  Mandy Ryan; Verity Watson; Vikki Entwistle
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  2009-03       Impact factor: 3.046

6.  Information, knowledge and expectations of the routine ultrasound scan.

Authors:  Joan G Lalor; Declan Devane
Journal:  Midwifery       Date:  2006-09-28       Impact factor: 2.372

7.  Conducting discrete choice experiments to inform healthcare decision making: a user's guide.

Authors:  Emily Lancsar; Jordan Louviere
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 4.981

8.  What do patients value? Willingness to pay for ultrasound in normal pregnancy.

Authors:  D M Berwick; M C Weinstein
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1985-07       Impact factor: 2.983

9.  Models of intrapartum care and women's trade-offs in remote and rural Scotland: a mixed-methods study.

Authors:  E Pitchforth; V Watson; J Tucker; M Ryan; E van Teijlingen; J Farmer; J Ireland; E Thomson; A Kiger; H Bryers
Journal:  BJOG       Date:  2007-09-27       Impact factor: 6.531

10.  British National Health Service's and women's costs of antenatal ultrasound screening and follow-up tests.

Authors:  J Henderson; L Bricker; T Roberts; M Mugford; J Garcia; J Neilson
Journal:  Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2002-08       Impact factor: 7.299

View more
  2 in total

Review 1.  Conceptualization, measurement, and effects of pregnancy-specific stress: review of research using the original and revised Prenatal Distress Questionnaire.

Authors:  Sirena M Ibrahim; Marci Lobel
Journal:  J Behav Med       Date:  2019-06-10

2.  Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: Past, Present and Future.

Authors:  Vikas Soekhai; Esther W de Bekker-Grob; Alan R Ellis; Caroline M Vass
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2019-02       Impact factor: 4.981

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.