IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v17y2019i1p117-d301023.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How Do Type 2 Diabetes Patients Value Urban Integrated Primary Care in China? Results of a Discrete Choice Experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Xin Wang

    (School of Public Health, Health Development Research Center, Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou 510080, China)

  • Kuimeng Song

    (Shandong Institute of Medicine and Health Information, Shandong First Medical University & Shandong Academy of Medical Sciences, Jinan 250012, China)

  • Paiyi Zhu

    (School of Public Health, Health Development Research Center, Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou 510080, China)

  • Pim Valentijn

    (Department of Health Services Research, Care and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI), Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Maastricht University, 6229 GT Maastricht, The Netherlands
    Integrated Care Evaluation, Essenburgh Research & Consultancy, 3849 AE Hierden, The Netherlands)

  • Yixiang Huang

    (School of Public Health, Health Development Research Center, Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou 510080, China)

  • Stephen Birch

    (Centre for the Business and Economics of Health, University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD 4072, Australia)

Abstract

Objectives: Fragmented healthcare in China cannot meet the needs of the growing number of type 2 diabetes patients. The World Health Organization proposed an integrated primary care approach to address the needs of patients with chronic conditions. This study aims to measure type 2 diabetes patients’ preferences for urban integrated primary care in China. Methods: A discrete choice experiment was designed to measure type 2 diabetes patient preferences for seven priority attributes of integrated care. A two-stage sampling survey of 307 type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients in 16 community health stations was carried out. Interviews were conducted to explore the reasons underpinning the preferences. A logit regression model was used to estimate patients’ willingness to pay and to analyze the expected impact of potential policy changes. Results: Travel time to care providers and experience of care providers are the most valued attributes for respondents rather than out-of-pocket cost. Attention to personal situation, the attentiveness of care providers, and the friendliness and helpfulness of staff were all related to interpersonal communication between patients and health care providers. Accurate health information and multidisciplinary care were less important attributes. Conclusions: The study provides an insight into type 2 diabetes patients’ needs and preferences of integrated primary care. People-centered interventions, such as increasing coverage by family doctor and cultivating mutual continuous relationships appear to be key priorities of policy and practice in China.

Suggested Citation

  • Xin Wang & Kuimeng Song & Paiyi Zhu & Pim Valentijn & Yixiang Huang & Stephen Birch, 2019. "How Do Type 2 Diabetes Patients Value Urban Integrated Primary Care in China? Results of a Discrete Choice Experiment," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(1), pages 1-12, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2019:i:1:p:117-:d:301023
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/1/117/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/1/117/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Verelst, Frederik & Willem, Lander & Kessels, Roselinde & Beutels, Philippe, 2018. "Individual decisions to vaccinate one's child or oneself: A discrete choice experiment rejecting free-riding motives," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 207(C), pages 106-116.
    2. Michael Clark & Domino Determann & Stavros Petrou & Domenico Moro & Esther Bekker-Grob, 2014. "Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: A Review of the Literature," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 32(9), pages 883-902, September.
    3. David Revelt & Kenneth Train, 1998. "Mixed Logit With Repeated Choices: Households' Choices Of Appliance Efficiency Level," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 80(4), pages 647-657, November.
    4. Yaohui Zhao & Eileen M. Crimmins & Peifeng Hu & Yang Shen & James P. Smith & John Strauss & Yafeng Wang & Yuan Zhang, 2016. "Prevalence, diagnosis, and management of diabetes mellitus among older Chinese: results from the China Health and Retirement Longitudinal Study," International Journal of Public Health, Springer;Swiss School of Public Health (SSPH+), vol. 61(3), pages 347-356, April.
    5. Determann, Domino & Lambooij, Mattijs S. & de Bekker-Grob, Esther W. & Hayen, Arthur P. & Varkevisser, Marco & Schut, Frederik T. & Wit, G. Ardine de, 2016. "What health plans do people prefer? The trade-off between premium and provider choice," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 10-18.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Juan M. Gonzalez Sepulveda & F. Reed Johnson & Deborah A. Marshall, 2021. "Incomplete information and irrelevant attributes in stated‐preference values for health interventions," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(11), pages 2637-2648, November.
    2. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Hensher, David A., 2021. "The landscape of econometric discrete choice modelling research," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    3. Joachim Marti & John Buckell & Johanna Catherine Maclean & Jody L. Sindelar, 2016. "To ‘Vape’ or Smoke? A Discrete Choice Experiment Among U.S. Adult Smokers," NBER Working Papers 22079, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    4. Peyron, Christine & Pélissier, Aurore & Béjean, Sophie, 2018. "Preference heterogeneity with respect to whole genome sequencing. A discrete choice experiment among parents of children with rare genetic diseases," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 214(C), pages 125-132.
    5. Liu, Yun & Kong, Qingxia & de Bekker-Grob, Esther W., 2019. "Public preferences for health care facilities in rural China: A discrete choice experiment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 237(C), pages 1-1.
    6. Stijn Van Puyvelde & Ralf Caers & Cind Du Bois & Marc Jegers, 2015. "Does organizational ownership matter? Objectives of employees in public, nonprofit and for-profit nursing homes," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 47(24), pages 2500-2513, May.
    7. Djamel Rahmani & Zein Kallas & Maria Pappa & José Maria Gil, 2019. "Are Consumers’ Egg Preferences Influenced by Animal-Welfare Conditions and Environmental Impacts?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(22), pages 1-23, November.
    8. Jingrong Zhu & Jinlin Li & Zengbo Zhang & Hao Li, 2019. "Patients' choice and preference for common disease diagnosis and diabetes care: A discrete choice experiment," International Journal of Health Planning and Management, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 34(4), pages 1544-1555, October.
    9. Edward J. D. Webb & John O’Dwyer & David Meads & Paul Kind & Penny Wright, 2020. "Transforming discrete choice experiment latent scale values for EQ-5D-3L using the visual analogue scale," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 21(5), pages 787-800, July.
    10. Nicolet, Anna & Perraudin, Clémence & Krucien, Nicolas & Wagner, Joël & Peytremann-Bridevaux, Isabelle & Marti, Joachim, 2023. "Preferences of older adults for healthcare models designed to improve care coordination: Evidence from Western Switzerland," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 132(C).
    11. Shr, Yau-Huo (Jimmy) & Zhang, Wendong, 2024. "Omitted downstream attributes and the benefits of nutrient reductions: Implications for choice experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 222(C).
    12. Ortega, David L. & Wang, H. Holly & Wu, Laping & Hong, Soo Jeong, 2015. "Retail channel and consumer demand for food quality in China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 359-366.
    13. Kruse, Tobias & Atkinson, Giles, 2022. "Understanding public support for international climate adaptation payments: Evidence from a choice experiment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 194(C).
    14. Frings, Oliver & Abildtrup, Jens & Montagné-Huck, Claire & Gorel, Salomé & Stenger, Anne, 2023. "Do individual PES buyers care about additionality and free-riding? A choice experiment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 213(C).
    15. Schleich, Joachim & Faure, Corinne & Guetlein, Marie-Charlotte & Tu, Gengyang, 2020. "Conveyance, envy, and homeowner choice of appliances," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(C).
    16. Fosgerau, Mogens & Bierlaire, Michel, 2007. "A practical test for the choice of mixing distribution in discrete choice models," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 41(7), pages 784-794, August.
    17. Paleti, Rajesh, 2018. "Generalized multinomial probit Model: Accommodating constrained random parameters," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 248-262.
    18. Arthur Van Soest & Arie Kapteyn & Julie Zissimopoulos, 2006. "Using Stated Preferences Data to Analyze Preferences for Full and Partial Retirement," Working Papers WR-345, RAND Corporation.
    19. van Cranenburgh, Sander & Bliemer, Michiel C.J., 2019. "Information theoretic-based sampling of observations," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 31(C), pages 181-197.
    20. Walters, Gabby & Magor, Thomas & Kelly, Sarah & Wallin, Ann, 2022. "Cruising through a pandemic: Or not?," Annals of Tourism Research, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2019:i:1:p:117-:d:301023. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.