Literature DB >> 30259546

What can discrete choice experiments do for you?

Jennifer Cleland1, Terry Porteous1, Diane Skåtun2.   

Abstract

CONTEXT: In everyday life, the choices we make are influenced by our preferences for the alternatives available to us. The same is true when choosing medical education, training and jobs. More often than not, those alternatives comprise multiple attributes and our ultimate choice will be guided by the value we place on each attribute relative to the others. In education, for example, choice of university is likely to be influenced by preferences for institutional reputation, location, cost and course content; but which of these attributes is the most influential? An understanding of what is valued by applicants, students, trainees and colleagues is of increasing importance in the higher education and medical job marketplaces because it will help us to develop options that meet their needs and preferences.
METHODS: In this article, we describe the discrete choice experiment (DCE), a survey method borrowed from economics that allows us to quantify the values respondents place on the attributes of goods and services, and to explore whether and to what extent they are willing to trade less of one attribute for more of another.
CONCLUSIONS: To date, DCEs have been used to look at medical workforce issues but relatively little in the field of medical education. However, many outstanding questions within medical education could be usefully addressed using DCEs. A better understanding of which attributes have most influence on, for example, staff or student satisfaction, choice of university and choice of career, and the extent to which stakeholders are prepared to trade one attribute against another is required. Such knowledge will allow us to tailor the way medical education is provided to better meet the needs of key stakeholders within the available resources.
© 2018 John Wiley & Sons Ltd and The Association for the Study of Medical Education.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30259546     DOI: 10.1111/medu.13657

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Educ        ISSN: 0308-0110            Impact factor:   6.251


  5 in total

1.  We know but we hope: A qualitative study of the opinions and experiences on the inclusion of management, health economics and research in the medical curriculum.

Authors:  Astrid Turner; Mandy Ryan; Jacqueline Wolvaardt
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-10-21       Impact factor: 3.752

2.  Preferences for private health insurance in China: A discrete choice experiment.

Authors:  Nuo Chen; Jing Bai; Stephen Nicholas; Elizabeth Maitland; Jialong Tan; Jian Wang
Journal:  Front Public Health       Date:  2022-09-06

3.  Continuing the sequence? Towards an economic evaluation of whole genome sequencing for the diagnosis of rare diseases in Scotland.

Authors:  Michael Abbott; Lynda McKenzie; Blanca Viridiana Guizar Moran; Sebastian Heidenreich; Rodolfo Hernández; Lynne Hocking-Mennie; Caroline Clark; Joana Gomes; Anne Lampe; David Baty; Ruth McGowan; Zosia Miedzybrodzka; Mandy Ryan
Journal:  J Community Genet       Date:  2021-08-20

4.  An inconvenient discussion.

Authors:  Pim W Teunissen
Journal:  Med Educ       Date:  2018-11       Impact factor: 6.251

5.  "You can't always get what you want…": economic thinking, constrained optimization and health professions education.

Authors:  J A Cleland; J Foo; D Ilic; S Maloney; Y You
Journal:  Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract       Date:  2020-11-03       Impact factor: 3.853

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.