Patricia Kenny1, Stephen Goodall2, Deborah J Street2, Jessica Greene3. 1. Centre for Health Economics Research and Evaluation, University of Technology Sydney, Broadway, PO Box 123, Ultimo, NSW, 2007, Australia. patsy.kenny@chere.uts.edu.au. 2. Centre for Health Economics Research and Evaluation, University of Technology Sydney, Broadway, PO Box 123, Ultimo, NSW, 2007, Australia. 3. Marxe School of Public and International Affairs, Baruch College, City University of New York, New York, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Choosing a new health service provider can be difficult and is dependent on the type and clarity of the information available. This study examines if the presentation of service quality information affects the decisions of consumers choosing a general medical practice. OBJECTIVES: The aim was to examine the impact of presentation format on attribute level interpretation and relative importance. METHODS: A discrete choice experiment eliciting preferences for a general medical practice was conducted using four different presentation formats for service quality attributes: (1) frequency and percentage with an icon array, (2) star ratings, (3) star ratings with a text benchmark, and (4) percentage alone. A total of 1208 respondents from an online panel were randomised to see two formats, answering nine choices for each, where one was a dominated choice. Logistic regression was used to assess the impact of presentation format on the probability of choosing a dominated alternative. A generalised multinomial logit model was used to estimate the relative importance of the attribute levels. RESULTS: The probability of incorrectly choosing a dominated alternative was significantly higher when the quality information was presented as a percentage relative to a frequency with icon array, star rating or bench-marked star rating. Preferences for a practice did not differ significantly by presentation format, nor did the probability of finding the information difficult to understand. CONCLUSIONS: Quantitative health service quality information will be more useful to consumers if presented by combining the numerical information with a graphic, or using a star rating if appropriate for the context.
BACKGROUND: Choosing a new health service provider can be difficult and is dependent on the type and clarity of the information available. This study examines if the presentation of service quality information affects the decisions of consumers choosing a general medical practice. OBJECTIVES: The aim was to examine the impact of presentation format on attribute level interpretation and relative importance. METHODS: A discrete choice experiment eliciting preferences for a general medical practice was conducted using four different presentation formats for service quality attributes: (1) frequency and percentage with an icon array, (2) star ratings, (3) star ratings with a text benchmark, and (4) percentage alone. A total of 1208 respondents from an online panel were randomised to see two formats, answering nine choices for each, where one was a dominated choice. Logistic regression was used to assess the impact of presentation format on the probability of choosing a dominated alternative. A generalised multinomial logit model was used to estimate the relative importance of the attribute levels. RESULTS: The probability of incorrectly choosing a dominated alternative was significantly higher when the quality information was presented as a percentage relative to a frequency with icon array, star rating or bench-marked star rating. Preferences for a practice did not differ significantly by presentation format, nor did the probability of finding the information difficult to understand. CONCLUSIONS: Quantitative health service quality information will be more useful to consumers if presented by combining the numerical information with a graphic, or using a star rating if appropriate for the context.
Authors: Candace D McNaughton; Kerri L Cavanaugh; Sunil Kripalani; Russell L Rothman; Kenneth A Wallston Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2015-04-15 Impact factor: 2.583
Authors: Patricia Kenny; Richard De Abreu Lourenco; Chun Yee Wong; Marion Haas; Stephen Goodall Journal: Health Expect Date: 2015-01-07 Impact factor: 3.377
Authors: Suzanne L West; Linda B Squiers; Lauren McCormack; Brian G Southwell; Emily S Brouwer; Mahima Ashok; Linda Lux; Vanessa Boudewyns; Amie O'Donoghue; Helen W Sullivan Journal: Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf Date: 2013-02-26 Impact factor: 2.890
Authors: Bernd Rechel; Martin McKee; Marion Haas; Gregory P Marchildon; Frederic Bousquet; Miriam Blümel; Alexander Geissler; Ewout van Ginneken; Toni Ashton; Ingrid Sperre Saunes; Anders Anell; Wilm Quentin; Richard Saltman; Steven Culler; Andrew Barnes; Willy Palm; Ellen Nolte Journal: Health Policy Date: 2016-02-26 Impact factor: 2.980
Authors: Angela Fagerlin; Brian J Zikmund-Fisher; Peter A Ubel; Aleksandra Jankovic; Holly A Derry; Dylan M Smith Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2007-07-19 Impact factor: 2.583