IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0133304.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Healthcare Worker Preferences for Active Tuberculosis Case Finding Programs in South Africa: A Best-Worst Scaling Choice Experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Nathan N O’Hara
  • Lilla Roy
  • Lyndsay M O’Hara
  • Jerry M Spiegel
  • Larry D Lynd
  • J Mark FitzGerald
  • Annalee Yassi
  • Letshego E Nophale
  • Carlo A Marra

Abstract

Objective: Healthcare workers (HCWs) in South Africa are at a high risk of developing active tuberculosis (TB) due to their occupational exposures. This study aimed to systematically quantify and compare the preferred attributes of an active TB case finding program for HCWs in South Africa. Methods: A Best–Worst Scaling choice experiment estimated HCW’s preferences using a random-effects conditional logit model. Latent class analysis (LCA) was used to explore heterogeneity in preferences. Results: “No cost”, “the assurance of confidentiality”, “no wait” and testing at the occupational health unit at one’s hospital were the most preferred attributes. LCA identified a four class model with consistent differences in preference strength. Sex, occupation, and the time since a previous TB test were statistically significant predictors of class membership. Conclusions: The findings support the strengthening of occupational health units in South Africa to offer free and confidential active TB case finding programs for HCWs with minimal wait times. There is considerable variation in active TB case finding preferences amongst HCWs of different gender, occupation, and testing history. Attention to heterogeneity in preferences should optimize screening utilization of target HCW populations.

Suggested Citation

  • Nathan N O’Hara & Lilla Roy & Lyndsay M O’Hara & Jerry M Spiegel & Larry D Lynd & J Mark FitzGerald & Annalee Yassi & Letshego E Nophale & Carlo A Marra, 2015. "Healthcare Worker Preferences for Active Tuberculosis Case Finding Programs in South Africa: A Best-Worst Scaling Choice Experiment," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(7), pages 1-13, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0133304
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0133304
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0133304
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0133304&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0133304?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lancsar, Emily & Louviere, Jordan & Donaldson, Cam & Currie, Gillian & Burgess, Leonie, 2013. "Best worst discrete choice experiments in health: Methods and an application," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 74-82.
    2. Emily Lancsar & Jordan Louviere, 2008. "Conducting Discrete Choice Experiments to Inform Healthcare Decision Making," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 26(8), pages 661-677, August.
    3. Flynn, Terry N. & Louviere, Jordan J. & Peters, Tim J. & Coast, Joanna, 2007. "Best-worst scaling: What it can do for health care research and how to do it," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 171-189, January.
    4. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74(2), pages 132-132.
    5. Rajnish Joshi & Arthur L Reingold & Dick Menzies & Madhukar Pai, 2006. "Tuberculosis among Health-Care Workers in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Systematic Review," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 3(12), pages 1-16, December.
    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. Alessandro Mengoni & Chiara Seghieri & Sabina Nuti, 2013. "The application of discrete choice experiments in health economics: a systematic review of the literature," Working Papers 201301, Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna of Pisa, Istituto di Management.
    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. Nicolas Krucien & Verity Watson & Mandy Ryan, 2017. "Is Best–Worst Scaling Suitable for Health State Valuation? A Comparison with Discrete Choice Experiments," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(12), pages 1-16, December.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. Mesfin G. Genie & Nicolas Krucien & Mandy Ryan, 2021. "Weighting or aggregating? Investigating information processing in multi‐attribute choices," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(6), pages 1291-1305, June.
    7. Axel Mühlbacher & Uwe Junker & Christin Juhnke & Edgar Stemmler & Thomas Kohlmann & Friedhelm Leverkus & Matthias Nübling, 2015. "Chronic pain patients’ treatment preferences: a discrete-choice experiment," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 16(6), pages 613-628, July.
    8. Axel Mühlbacher & Matthias Nübling, 2010. "Analysis of Patients’ Preferences," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 3(4), pages 285-294, December.
    9. Muunda, Emmanuel & Mtimet, Nadhem & Schneider, Franziska & Wanyoike, Francis & Dominguez-Salas, Paula & Alonso, Silvia, 2021. "Could the new dairy policy affect milk allocation to infants in Kenya? A best-worst scaling approach," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(C).
    10. Dimitris Damigos & Christina Kaliampakou & Anastasios Balaskas & Lefkothea Papada, 2021. "Does Energy Poverty Affect Energy Efficiency Investment Decisions? First Evidence from a Stated Choice Experiment," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(6), pages 1-17, March.
    11. Shimelis Araya Geda & Rainer Kühl, 2021. "Exploring Smallholder Farmers’ Preferences for Climate-Smart Seed Innovations: Empirical Evidence from Southern Ethiopia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-17, March.
    12. Axel C. Mühlbacher & John F. P. Bridges & Susanne Bethge & Ch.-Markos Dintsios & Anja Schwalm & Andreas Gerber-Grote & Matthias Nübling, 2017. "Preferences for antiviral therapy of chronic hepatitis C: a discrete choice experiment," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 18(2), pages 155-165, March.
    13. S. Ceolotto & E. Denny, 2024. "Putting a New ‘Spin’ on Energy Information: Measuring the Impact of Reframing Energy Efficiency Information on Tumble Dryer Choices in a Multi-country Experiment," Journal of Consumer Policy, Springer, vol. 47(1), pages 51-108, March.
    14. Swait, J. & de Bekker-Grob, E.W., 2022. "A discrete choice model implementing gist-based categorization of alternatives, with applications to patient preferences for cancer screening and treatment," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 85(C).
    15. Duy Chinh Nguyen & Huu Dung Hoang & Huu Tien Hoang & Quang Trung Bui & Lan Phuong Nguyen, 2019. "Modal Preference in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam: An Experiment With New Modes of Transport," SAGE Open, , vol. 9(2), pages 21582440198, April.
    16. Hoyos, David, 2010. "The state of the art of environmental valuation with discrete choice experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(8), pages 1595-1603, June.
    17. Cynthia I. Escobedo del Bosque & Achim Spiller & Antje Risius, 2021. "Who Wants Chicken? Uncovering Consumer Preferences for Produce of Alternative Chicken Product Methods," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-21, February.
    18. Pedersen, Line Bjørnskov & Hess, Stephane & Kjær, Trine, 2016. "Asymmetric information and user orientation in general practice: Exploring the agency relationship in a best–worst scaling study," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 115-130.
    19. Leonie Burgess & Deborah J. Street & Rosalie Viney & Jordan Louviere, 2012. "Design of Choice Experiments in Health Economics," Chapters, in: Andrew M. Jones (ed.), The Elgar Companion to Health Economics, Second Edition, chapter 42, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    20. Samare P. I. Huls & Emily Lancsar & Bas Donkers & Jemimah Ride, 2022. "Two for the price of one: If moving beyond traditional single‐best discrete choice experiments, should we use best‐worst, best‐best or ranking for preference elicitation?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(12), pages 2630-2647, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:plo:pone00:0133304. 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.