Robert Dunlea1, Leslie Lenert1,2. 1. Department of Biomedical Informatics, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT (RD, LL) 2. Biomedical Informatics Center, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC (LL)
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A specialty referral is a common but complex decision that often requires a primary care provider to balance his or her own interests with those of the patient. OBJECTIVE: To examine the factors that influence a patient's choice of a specialist for consultation for an asymptomatic condition and better understand the tradeoffs that patients are and are not willing to make in this decision. DESIGN: Stratified cross-sectional convenience sample of subjects selected to parallel US population demographics. PARTICIPANTS: Members of an Internet survey panel who reported seeing a physician in the past year whose responses met objective quality metrics for attention. MAIN MEASURES: Respondents completed an adaptive conjoint analysis survey comparing specialists regarding eight attributes. The reliability of assessments and the predictive validity of models were measured using holdout samples. The relative importance (RI) of different attributes was computed using paired t tests. The implications of utility values were studied using market simulation methods. KEY RESULTS: Five hundred and thirty subjects completed the survey and had responses that met quality criteria. The reliability of responses was high (86% agreement), and models were predictive of patients' preferences (82.6% agreement with holdout choices). The most important attribute for patients was out-of-pocket cost (RI of 19.5%, P < 0.0001 v. other factors). Among the nonfinancial factors, "collaboration and communication" with the primary care provider was the most important attribute (RI of 13.1% P < 0.001). Third in importance was whether the specialist practiced shared decision making (RI of 12.2% P < 0.001 v. other factors except delay in consultation). Cost did not dominate decision making. In market simulations, patients frequently preferred more expensive providers. For example, most patients (76.3%) were willing to pay more ($80) to see a specialist who both collaborated well with their primary care provider and practiced shared decision making. Most patients prefer to wait for a doctor who practices shared decision making: Only one-third (32.3%) of patients preferred a paternalistic doctor who was available in 2 weeks over a doctor who practiced decision making but was available in 4 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: In the setting of a referral for an asymptomatic but serious condition, out-of-pocket costs are important to patients; however, they also value specialists who collaborate and communicate well with their primary care providers and who practice shared decision making. Patients have wide variability in preferences for specialists, and referral decisions should be individualized.
BACKGROUND: A specialty referral is a common but complex decision that often requires a primary care provider to balance his or her own interests with those of the patient. OBJECTIVE: To examine the factors that influence a patient's choice of a specialist for consultation for an asymptomatic condition and better understand the tradeoffs that patients are and are not willing to make in this decision. DESIGN: Stratified cross-sectional convenience sample of subjects selected to parallel US population demographics. PARTICIPANTS: Members of an Internet survey panel who reported seeing a physician in the past year whose responses met objective quality metrics for attention. MAIN MEASURES: Respondents completed an adaptive conjoint analysis survey comparing specialists regarding eight attributes. The reliability of assessments and the predictive validity of models were measured using holdout samples. The relative importance (RI) of different attributes was computed using paired t tests. The implications of utility values were studied using market simulation methods. KEY RESULTS: Five hundred and thirty subjects completed the survey and had responses that met quality criteria. The reliability of responses was high (86% agreement), and models were predictive of patients' preferences (82.6% agreement with holdout choices). The most important attribute for patients was out-of-pocket cost (RI of 19.5%, P < 0.0001 v. other factors). Among the nonfinancial factors, "collaboration and communication" with the primary care provider was the most important attribute (RI of 13.1% P < 0.001). Third in importance was whether the specialist practiced shared decision making (RI of 12.2% P < 0.001 v. other factors except delay in consultation). Cost did not dominate decision making. In market simulations, patients frequently preferred more expensive providers. For example, most patients (76.3%) were willing to pay more ($80) to see a specialist who both collaborated well with their primary care provider and practiced shared decision making. Most patients prefer to wait for a doctor who practices shared decision making: Only one-third (32.3%) of patients preferred a paternalistic doctor who was available in 2 weeks over a doctor who practiced decision making but was available in 4 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: In the setting of a referral for an asymptomatic but serious condition, out-of-pocket costs are important to patients; however, they also value specialists who collaborate and communicate well with their primary care providers and who practice shared decision making. Patients have wide variability in preferences for specialists, and referral decisions should be individualized.
Authors: Jerry Avorn; Rhonda L Bohn; Elliott Levy; Raisa Levin; William F Owen; Wolfgang C Winkelmayer; Robert J Glynn Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2002-09-23
Authors: John F P Bridges; Ateesha F Mohamed; Henrik W Finnern; Anette Woehl; A Brett Hauber Journal: Lung Cancer Date: 2012-02-25 Impact factor: 5.705
Authors: Michael L Barnett; Nancy L Keating; Nicholas A Christakis; A James O'Malley; Bruce E Landon Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2011-09-16 Impact factor: 5.128