| Literature DB >> 32711467 |
Peipei Fu1, Yi Wang2, Shimeng Liu3, Jiajia Li2, Qiufeng Gao4, Chengchao Zhou5, Qingyue Meng6, Sean Sylvia7.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Preliminary evaluations have found that family doctor contract services (FDCSs) have significantly controlled medical expenses, better managed chronic diseases, and increased patient satisfaction and service compliance. In 2016, China proposed the establishment of a family doctor system to carry out contract services, but studies have found the uptake and utilization of these services to be limited. This study aimed to investigate rural residents' preferences for FDCSs from the perspective of the Chinese public.Entities:
Keywords: China; Family doctor contract services; Primary care; Rural resident preferences
Year: 2020 PMID: 32711467 PMCID: PMC7382837 DOI: 10.1186/s12875-020-01223-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Fam Pract ISSN: 1471-2296 Impact factor: 2.497
An example of a DCE question
| Attributes | Contract plan 1 | Contract plan 2 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost of the contract | 200 CNY/year | 100 CNY/year |
| Availability of medicine | Easy | Difficult |
| Reimbursement rate | Standard | 10% more |
| Family doctor competence | Medium | Low |
| Family doctor attitude | Good | Normal |
| □ | □ |
Pleases consider that you are going to enrol in a family doctor contract service for yourself. Of the two contract plans above, which contract plan would you choose?
Demographic characteristics of 609 respondents in China
| Characteristics | % | |
|---|---|---|
| 51.21 | ±13.05 | |
| Female | 290 | 47.62% |
| Male | 319 | 52.38% |
| Primary school or below | 209 | 34.32% |
| Middle school | 278 | 45.65% |
| High school or above | 122 | 20.03% |
| Married | 571 | 93.76% |
| Unmarried | 38 | 6.24% |
| < 20,000 CNY | 161 | 26.44% |
| 20,000–40,000 CNY | 172 | 28.24% |
| 40,000–70,000 CNY | 175 | 28.74% |
| > 70,000 CNY | 101 | 16.58% |
| Yes | 197 | 32.35% |
| No | 412 | 67.65% |
| Yes | 97 | 15.93% |
| No | 512 | 84.07% |
| Yes | 170 | 27.91% |
| No | 439 | 72.09% |
| Zibo | 210 | 34.48% |
| Liaocheng | 197 | 32.35% |
| Binzhou | 202 | 33.17% |
Source Analysis data from the questionnaires of rural residents in China. Notes The average exchange rate between US$ and CNY in 2018 was US$1 = CNY6.71
Main effect model estimation and residents’ willingness to pay for different attributes of contract services
| Attributes | Coefficient | WTP |
|---|---|---|
| (SE) | (95% CI) | |
| −0.01*** | – | |
| (0.01) | – | |
| 0.63*** | 114.14 | |
| (0.06) | (87.55 ~ 140.74) | |
| 0.31*** | 56.02 | |
| (0.06) | (33.24 ~ 78.81) | |
| 0.45*** | 81.66 | |
| (0.08) | (53.19 ~ 110.14) | |
| 1.24*** | 224.73 | |
| (0.08) | (188.37 ~ 261.10) | |
| 2.44*** | 441.13 | |
| (0.13) | (377.92 ~ 504.35) | |
| 1.01*** | 182.18 | |
| (0.08) | (148.04 ~ 216.33) | |
| 1.42*** | 255.77 | |
| (0.09) | (212.22 ~ 299.34) |
Source Analysis data from the questionnaires of rural residents in China. Notes WTP is estimated by calculating the ratios of the coefficients between each attribute level and the contract cost attribute. aThe coefficients represent the mean relative utility of each attribute conditional on other attributes in a choice set, and a larger coefficient means a more preferred attribute. bThe average exchange rate between US$ and CNY in 2018 was US$1 = CNY6.71. 95% CI = 95% confidence interval, SE = standard error, *** p < 0.01, ** p < 0.05, * p < 0.1
Model estimation of the interaction effects with different attributes and education
| Attributes and levels | Coefficient | SE |
|---|---|---|
| Contract costs | −0.01*** | 0.01 |
| Availability of medicine (easy) | 0.47*** | 0.11 |
| Reimbursement rate 5% more | 0.27*** | 0.10 |
| Reimbursement rate 10% more | 0.42*** | 0.12 |
| Medium competence | 1.33*** | 0.12 |
| High competence | 2.32*** | 0.18 |
| Normal attitude | 0.81*** | 0.13 |
| Good attitude | 1.16*** | 0.13 |
| Contract cost*Education_m | 0.01 | 0.01 |
| Contract cost*Education_h | 0.01 | 0.01 |
| Availability of medicine (easy)* Education_m | 0.34*** | 0.14 |
| Availability of medicine (easy)* Education_h | 0.10 | 0.17 |
| Reimbursement rate 5% more* Education_m | 0.12 | 0.13 |
| Reimbursement rate 5% more* Education_h | −0.05 | 0.17 |
| Reimbursement rate 10% more* Education_m | 0.08 | 0.17 |
| Reimbursement rate 10% more* Education_h | 0.05 | 0.21 |
| Medium competence* Education_m | −0.11 | 0.14 |
| Medium competence* Education_h | −0.17 | 0.18 |
| High competence* Education_m | 0.28 | 0.20 |
| High competence* Education_h | 0.01 | 0.24 |
| Normal attitude* Education_m | 0.17 | 0.16 |
| Normal attitude* Education_h | 0.65*** | 0.21 |
| Good attitude* Education_m | 0.21 | 0.16 |
| Good attitude* Education_h | 0.87*** | 0.21 |
SE standard error, *** p < 0.01, ** p < 0.05, * p < 0.1