IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v17y2020i11p3987-d367214.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Preferences of Patients with Non-Communicable Diseases for Primary Healthcare Facilities: A Discrete Choice Experiment in Wuhan, China

Author

Listed:
  • Erping Jia

    (Department of Health Administration, School of Medicine and Health Management, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430030, Hubei Province, China)

  • Yuanyuan Gu

    (Macquarie University Centre for the Health Economy, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW 2109, Australia)

  • Yingying Peng

    (Department of Health Administration, School of Medicine and Health Management, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430030, Hubei Province, China)

  • Xianglin Li

    (Department of Health Administration, School of Medicine and Health Management, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430030, Hubei Province, China)

  • Xiao Shen

    (Department of Health Administration, School of Medicine and Health Management, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430030, Hubei Province, China)

  • Mingzhu Jiang

    (Department of Health Administration, School of Medicine and Health Management, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430030, Hubei Province, China)

  • Juyang Xiong

    (Department of Health Administration, School of Medicine and Health Management, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430030, Hubei Province, China)

Abstract

Objectives: To elicit stated preferences of patients with non-communicable diseases (NCDs) for primary healthcare (PHC) facilities and to explore the willingness-to-pay (WTP) for facility attributes. Methods: A discrete choice experiment (DCE) was conducted through face to face interviews. The DCE survey was constructed by five attributes: type of service, treatment measures, cost, travel time, and care provider. Patients’ preferences and willingness to pay for facility attributes were analyzed using a mixed logit model, and interaction terms were used to assess preference heterogeneity among patients with different sociodemographic characteristics. Results: Patients placed different weights on attributes, depending on whether they perceived their health condition as minor or severe. For conditions perceived as minor, patients valued treatment measures (56.60%), travel time (32.34%) and care provider (8.51%) most. For conditions perceived as severe, they valued treatment measures (52.19%), care provider (38.69%), and type of service (7.30%) most. The WTP related to the change from Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) service to Modern Medicine (MM) service was the largest for both severity scenarios. For conditions perceived as minor, patients would be willing to pay 102.84 CNY (15.43 USD) for a reduction in travel time to below 30 min. For conditions perceived as severe, WTP related to the change from general service to specialized service and from junior medical practitioner to senior medical practitioner, were highly valued by respondents, worth 107.3 CNY (16.10 USD) and 565.8 CNY (84.87 USD), respectively. Conclusions: Factors related to the provision of PHC, such as treatment measures, care provider and type of service were highly valued. The findings could contribute to the design of better PHC delivery, improve the participation of patients in PHC, and provide some evidence to promote shared decision-making.

Suggested Citation

  • Erping Jia & Yuanyuan Gu & Yingying Peng & Xianglin Li & Xiao Shen & Mingzhu Jiang & Juyang Xiong, 2020. "Preferences of Patients with Non-Communicable Diseases for Primary Healthcare Facilities: A Discrete Choice Experiment in Wuhan, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(11), pages 1-15, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:11:p:3987-:d:367214
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/11/3987/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/11/3987/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Emily Lancsar & Jordan Louviere, 2008. "Conducting Discrete Choice Experiments to Inform Healthcare Decision Making," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 26(8), pages 661-677, August.
    2. Mickael Bech & Dorte Gyrd‐Hansen, 2005. "Effects coding in discrete choice experiments," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(10), pages 1079-1083, October.
    3. Andrew A. Goett & Kathleen Hudson & Kenneth E. Train, 2000. "Customers' Choice Among Retail Energy Suppliers: The Willingness-to-Pay for Service Attributes," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 4), pages 1-28.
    4. Arne Risa Hole, 2007. "A comparison of approaches to estimating confidence intervals for willingness to pay measures," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(8), pages 827-840, August.
    5. Joanna Coast & Hareth Al‐Janabi & Eileen J. Sutton & Susan A. Horrocks & A. Jane Vosper & Dawn R. Swancutt & Terry N. Flynn, 2012. "Using qualitative methods for attribute development for discrete choice experiments: issues and recommendations," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(6), pages 730-741, June.
    6. Sophy Barber & Hilary Bekker & Joachim Marti & Sue Pavitt & Balvinder Khambay & David Meads, 2019. "Development of a Discrete-Choice Experiment (DCE) to Elicit Adolescent and Parent Preferences for Hypodontia Treatment," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 12(1), pages 137-148, February.
    7. Chi Zhang, 2017. "Population in China," Europe-Asia Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 69(8), pages 1333-1334, September.
    8. Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Rose, John M., 2013. "Confidence intervals of willingness-to-pay for random coefficient logit models," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 199-214.
    9. Yadong Niu & Ting Ye & Yan Zhang & Liang Zhang, 2019. "Can Primary Medical Institutions Lead to Worse Health Status for Patients with Noncommunicable Diseases Compared with High-Level Hospitals? A Follow-Up Observation Study in China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(8), pages 1-9, April.
    10. Lancsar, Emily & Louviere, Jordan & Flynn, Terry, 2007. "Several methods to investigate relative attribute impact in stated preference experiments," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 64(8), pages 1738-1753, April.
    11. 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.
    12. Shimeng Liu & Shunping Li & Yujia Li & Haipeng Wang & Jingjing Zhao & Gang Chen, 2019. "Job preferences for healthcare administration students in China: A discrete choice experiment," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(1), pages 1-19, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Plaxcedes Chiwire & Charlotte Beaudart & Silvia M. Evers & Hassan Mahomed & Mickaël Hiligsmann, 2022. "Enhancing Public Participation in Public Health Offerings: Patient Preferences for Facilities in the Western Cape Province Using a Discrete Choice Experiment," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(1), pages 1-26, January.

    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. Rachel Milte & Julie Ratcliffe & Gang Chen & Michelle Miller & Maria Crotty, 2018. "Taste, choice and timing: Investigating resident and carer preferences for meals in aged care homes," Nursing & Health Sciences, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(1), pages 116-124, March.
    2. Hotaling, Chelsea & Bird, Stephen & Heintzelman, Martin D., 2021. "Willingness to pay for microgrids to enhance community resilience," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 154(C).
    3. Emily Lancsar & Denzil G. Fiebig & Arne Risa Hole, 2017. "Discrete Choice Experiments: A Guide to Model Specification, Estimation and Software," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 35(7), pages 697-716, July.
    4. 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.
    5. Chiara Seghieri & Alessandro Mengoni & Sabina Nuti, 2014. "Applying discrete choice modelling in a priority setting: an investigation of public preferences for primary care models," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 15(7), pages 773-785, September.
    6. Abiiro, Gilbert Abotisem & Torbica, Aleksandra & Kwalamasa, Kassim & De Allegri, Manuela, 2014. "Eliciting community preferences for complementary micro health insurance: A discrete choice experiment in rural Malawi," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 160-168.
    7. Pierre-Alexandre Mahieu & Henrik Andersson & Olivier Beaumais & Romain Crastes & François-Charles Wolff, 2014. "Is Choice Experiment Becoming more Popular than Contingent Valuation? A Systematic Review in Agriculture, Environment and Health," Working Papers 2014.12, FAERE - French Association of Environmental and Resource Economists.
    8. Emily Lancsar & Peter Burge, 2014. "Choice modelling research in health economics," Chapters, in: Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly (ed.), Handbook of Choice Modelling, chapter 28, pages 675-687, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    9. Emily Lancsar & Jordan Louviere, 2008. "Conducting Discrete Choice Experiments to Inform Healthcare Decision Making," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 26(8), pages 661-677, August.
    10. Kruse, Tobias & Atkinson, Giles, 2022. "Understanding public support for international climate adaptation payments: Evidence from a choice experiment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 194(C).
    11. Chaikaew, Pasicha & Hodges, Alan W. & Grunwald, Sabine, 2017. "Estimating the value of ecosystem services in a mixed-use watershed: A choice experiment approach," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 228-237.
    12. Scaccia, Luisa & Marcucci, Edoardo & Gatta, Valerio, 2023. "Prediction and confidence intervals of willingness-to-pay for mixed logit models," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 54-78.
    13. Charles Cunningham & Ken Deal & Yvonne Chen, 2010. "Adaptive Choice-Based Conjoint Analysis," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 3(4), pages 257-273, December.
    14. Ting Li & Robert J. Kauffman & Eric van Heck & Peter Vervest & Benedict G. C. Dellaert, 2014. "Consumer Informedness and Firm Information Strategy," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 25(2), pages 345-363, June.
    15. Ortega, David L. & Wang, H. Holly & Wu, Laping & Olynk, Nicole J., 2011. "Modeling heterogeneity in consumer preferences for select food safety attributes in China," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 318-324, April.
    16. 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.
    17. Sagebiel, Julian & Müller, Jakob R. & Rommel, Jens, 2013. "Are Consumers Willing to Pay More for Electricity from Cooperatives? Results from an Online Choice Experiment in Germany," MPRA Paper 52385, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    18. Emma L Giles & Frauke Becker & Laura Ternent & Falko F Sniehotta & Elaine McColl & Jean Adams, 2016. "Acceptability of Financial Incentives for Health Behaviours: A Discrete Choice Experiment," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(6), pages 1-19, June.
    19. Mamine, Fateh & Fares, M'hand & Minviel, Jean Joseph, 2020. "Contract Design for Adoption of Agrienvironmental Practices: A Meta-analysis of Discrete Choice Experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    20. Carlsen, Benedicte & Hole, Arne Risa & Kolstad, Julie Riise & Norheim, Ole Frithjof, 2012. "When you can’t have the cake and eat it too," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 75(11), pages 1964-1973.

    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:2020:i:11:p:3987-:d:367214. 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.