Literature DB >> 32330182

Trading patients' choice in providers for quality of maternity care? A discrete choice experiment amongst pregnant women.

Mattijs S Lambooij1, Jorien Veldwijk2, Paul F van Gils1, Anita W M Suijkerbuijk1, Jeroen N Struijs1,3.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The introduction of bundled payment for maternity care, aimed at improving the quality of maternity care, may affect pregnant women's choice in providers of maternity care. This paper describes a Dutch study which examined pregnant women's preferences when choosing a maternity care provider. The study focused on factors that enhance the quality of maternity care versus (restricted) provider choice.
METHODS: A discrete choice experiment was conducted amongst 611 pregnant women living in the Netherlands using an online questionnaire. The data were analysed with Latent Class Analyses. The outcome measure consisted of stated preferences in the discrete choice experiment. Included factors were: information exchange by care providers through electronic medical records, information provided by midwife, information provided by friends, freedom to choose maternity care provider and travel distance.
RESULTS: Four different preference structures were found. In two of those structures, respondents found aspects of the maternity care related to quality of care more important than being able to choose a provider (provider choice). In the two other preference structures, respondents found provider choice more important than aspects related to quality of maternity care.
CONCLUSIONS: In a country with presumed high-quality maternity care like the Netherlands, about half of pregnant women prefer being able to choose their maternity care provider over organisational factors that might imply better quality of care. A comparable amount of women find quality-related aspects most important when choosing a maternity care provider and are willing to accept limitations in their choice of provider. These insights are relevant for policy makers in order to be able to design a bundled payment model which justify the preferences of all pregnant women.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32330182      PMCID: PMC7182251          DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0232098

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  PLoS One        ISSN: 1932-6203            Impact factor:   3.240


  29 in total

1.  Antenatal care for first time mothers: a discrete choice experiment of women's views on alternative packages of care.

Authors:  M Deverill; E Lancsar; V B A Snaith; S C Robson
Journal:  Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol       Date:  2010-04-24       Impact factor: 2.435

2.  Differences in preferences for obstetric care between nulliparae and their partners in the Netherlands: a discrete-choice experiment.

Authors:  Marijke Hendrix; Milena Pavlova; Marianne J Nieuwenhuijze; Johan L Severens; Jan G Nijhuis
Journal:  J Psychosom Obstet Gynaecol       Date:  2010-12       Impact factor: 2.949

3.  Measuring quality through performance. Respecting the subjective: quality measurement from the patient's perspective.

Authors:  Glyn Elwyn; Stephen Buetow; Judith Hibbard; Michel Wensing
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2007-11-17

4.  Alternative Alternative Payment Models.

Authors:  Katherine Baicker; Michael E Chernew
Journal:  JAMA Intern Med       Date:  2017-02-01       Impact factor: 21.873

5.  Beyond capitation: how new payment experiments seek to find the 'sweet spot' in amount of risk providers and payers bear.

Authors:  Austin B Frakt; Rick Mayes
Journal:  Health Aff (Millwood)       Date:  2012-09       Impact factor: 6.301

6.  Sample selection, recruitment and participation rates in health examination surveys in Europe--experience from seven national surveys.

Authors:  Jennifer S Mindell; Simona Giampaoli; Antje Goesswald; Panagiotis Kamtsiuris; Charlotte Mann; Satu Männistö; Karen Morgan; Nicola J Shelton; W M Monique Verschuren; Hanna Tolonen
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2015-10-05       Impact factor: 4.615

7.  An exploration of influences on women's birthplace decision-making in New Zealand: a mixed methods prospective cohort within the Evaluating Maternity Units study.

Authors:  Celia Grigg; Sally K Tracy; Rea Daellenbach; Mary Kensington; Virginia Schmied
Journal:  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth       Date:  2014-06-20       Impact factor: 3.007

Review 8.  What influences birth place preferences, choices and decision-making amongst healthy women with straightforward pregnancies in the UK? A qualitative evidence synthesis using a 'best fit' framework approach.

Authors:  Kirstie Coxon; Alison Chisholm; Reem Malouf; Rachel Rowe; Jennifer Hollowell
Journal:  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth       Date:  2017-03-31       Impact factor: 3.007

9.  Women's preferences for inpatient and outpatient priming for labour induction: a discrete choice experiment.

Authors:  Kirsten Howard; Karen Gerard; Pamela Adelson; Robert Bryce; Chris Wilkinson; Deborah Turnbull
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2014-07-30       Impact factor: 2.655

Review 10.  The effects of integrated care: a systematic review of UK and international evidence.

Authors:  Susan Baxter; Maxine Johnson; Duncan Chambers; Anthea Sutton; Elizabeth Goyder; Andrew Booth
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2018-05-10       Impact factor: 2.655

View more
  1 in total

1.  Farmers' willingness to pay for digital and conventional credit: Insight from a discrete choice experiment in Madagascar.

Authors:  Yaw Sarfo; Oliver Musshoff; Ron Weber; Michael Danne
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2021-11-12       Impact factor: 3.240

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.