Literature DB >> 34109570

Identifying New Zealand Public Preferences for Pharmacist Prescribers in Primary Care: A Discrete Choice Experiment.

Rakhee Raghunandan1, Kirsten Howard2, Carlo A Marra3, June Tordoff3, Alesha Smith3.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND
OBJECTIVE: Given increasing patient populations, general practitioner workforce constraints and the growing demand for health services in New Zealand (NZ), the development and provision of pharmacist prescribing services could be used to improve people's access to medicines. A discrete choice experiment (DCE) was utilised to determine NZ public preferences for pharmacist prescribing services in primary care in NZ.
METHODS: A D-efficient DCE design generated 20 choice questions in four blocks of five questions with three labelled alternatives per choice question. The online DCE used a NZ general public online research panel administered by an external organisation (SurveyEngine). The DCE included six attributes with two attributes each with two levels (location of consultation and consultation type), three levels (type of service and operating hours) and four levels (waiting time and cost).
RESULTS: Nine hundred and twenty-four respondents completed the survey with 4620 observations available for analyses. Respondents preferred pharmacist prescribing services with the following characteristics: optimisation of medicines and changes to only current medicine service types (relative to repeat prescribing); lower consultation costs, shorter waiting times, longer operating hours and consultation by appointment (relative to walk-in and wait clinic).
CONCLUSIONS: Prescribing policy could incorporate these public preferences to help develop accessible and effective primary care prescribing services utilising the skills of pharmacist prescribers to improve and reduce inequities in access to medicines in NZ. These results suggest the NZ public see pharmacists as part of the primary care prescribing team and are willing to utilise them if these services are implemented.
© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 34109570     DOI: 10.1007/s40271-021-00529-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Patient        ISSN: 1178-1653            Impact factor:   3.883


  30 in total

1.  Conjoint analysis applications in health--a checklist: a report of the ISPOR Good Research Practices for Conjoint Analysis Task Force.

Authors:  John F P Bridges; A Brett Hauber; Deborah Marshall; Andrew Lloyd; Lisa A Prosser; Dean A Regier; F Reed Johnson; Josephine Mauskopf
Journal:  Value Health       Date:  2011-04-22       Impact factor: 5.725

2.  Te Wero tonu-the challenge continues: Māori access to medicines 2006/07-2012/13 update.

Authors:  Scott Metcalfe; Kebede Beyene; Jude Urlich; Rhys Jones; Catherine Proffitt; Jeff Harrison; Ātene Andrews
Journal:  N Z Med J       Date:  2018-11-09

3.  Choice Experiments to Quantify Preferences for Health and Healthcare: State of the Practice.

Authors:  Axel Mühlbacher; F Reed Johnson
Journal:  Appl Health Econ Health Policy       Date:  2016-06       Impact factor: 2.561

4.  Statistical Methods for the Analysis of Discrete Choice Experiments: A Report of the ISPOR Conjoint Analysis Good Research Practices Task Force.

Authors:  A Brett Hauber; Juan Marcos González; Catharina G M Groothuis-Oudshoorn; Thomas Prior; Deborah A Marshall; Charles Cunningham; Maarten J IJzerman; John F P Bridges
Journal:  Value Health       Date:  2016-05-12       Impact factor: 5.725

Review 5.  Non-medical prescribing versus medical prescribing for acute and chronic disease management in primary and secondary care.

Authors:  Greg Weeks; Johnson George; Katie Maclure; Derek Stewart
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2016-11-22

Review 6.  Non-medical prescribing in New Zealand: an overview of prescribing rights, service delivery models and training.

Authors:  Rakhee Raghunandan; June Tordoff; Alesha Smith
Journal:  Ther Adv Drug Saf       Date:  2017-09-04

7.  Preferences for CT colonography and colonoscopy as diagnostic tests for colorectal cancer: a discrete choice experiment.

Authors:  Kirsten Howard; Glenn Salkeld; Michael Pignone; Peter Hewett; Peter Cheung; Julie Olsen; Wayne Clapton; Ian C Roberts-Thomson
Journal:  Value Health       Date:  2011-12       Impact factor: 5.725

8.  Conducting discrete choice experiments to inform healthcare decision making: a user's guide.

Authors:  Emily Lancsar; Jordan Louviere
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 4.981

9.  Does attribute framing in discrete choice experiments influence willingness to pay? Results from a discrete choice experiment in screening for colorectal cancer.

Authors:  Kirsten Howard; Glenn Salkeld
Journal:  Value Health       Date:  2008-07-24       Impact factor: 5.725

10.  Managing Minor Ailments; The Public's Preferences for Attributes of Community Pharmacies. A Discrete Choice Experiment.

Authors:  Terry Porteous; Mandy Ryan; Christine Bond; Margaret Watson; Verity Watson
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-03-31       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.