IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0152257.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Terry Porteous
  • Mandy Ryan
  • Christine Bond
  • Margaret Watson
  • Verity Watson

Abstract

Background: Demand for health services continues to rise. Greater use of community pharmacy services instead of medical services for minor ailments could help relieve pressure on healthcare providers in high-cost settings. Community pharmacies are recognised sources of treatment and advice for people wishing to manage these ailments. However, increasing the public’s use of pharmacy services may depend on attributes of pharmacies and their staff. This study aimed to determine the general public’s relative preferences for community pharmacy attributes using a discrete choice experiment (DCE). Method: A UK-wide DCE survey of the general public was conducted using face-to-face computer-assisted personal interviews. Attributes and levels for the DCE were informed by a literature review and a cohort study of community pharmacy customers. The context for the experiment was a minor ailment scenario describing flu-like symptoms. The DCE choice sets described two hypothetical community pharmacy services; respondents were asked to choose which (if either) of the two pharmacies they would prefer to help them manage symptoms. Data from 1,049 interviews were analysed using an error components logit model. Willingness to pay (WTP), a monetary measure of benefit, was estimated for the different attribute levels. Results: When seeking help or treatment for flu-like symptoms, respondents most valued a pharmacy service that would improve their understanding and management of symptoms (WTP = £6.28), provided by staff who are trained (WTP (pharmacist) = £2.63: WTP(trained assistant) = £3.22), friendly and approachable (WTP = £3.38). Waiting time, pharmacy location and availability of parking also contributed to respondents’ preferences. WTP for a service comprising the best possible combination of attributes and levels was calculated as £55.43. Conclusion: Attributes of a community pharmacy and its staff may influence people’s decisions about which pharmacy they would visit to access treatment and advice for minor ailments. In line with the public’s preferences, offering community pharmacy services that help people to better understand and manage symptoms, are provided promptly by trained staff who are friendly and approachable, and in a local setting with easy access to parking, has the potential to increase uptake amongst those seeking help to manage minor ailments. In this way it may be possible to shift demand away from high-cost health services and make more efficient use of scarce public resources.

Suggested Citation

  • Terry Porteous & Mandy Ryan & Christine Bond & Margaret Watson & Verity Watson, 2016. "Managing Minor Ailments; The Public’s Preferences for Attributes of Community Pharmacies. A Discrete Choice Experiment," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(3), pages 1-15, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0152257
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0152257
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0152257
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0152257&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0152257?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. Esther W. de Bekker‐Grob & Mandy Ryan & Karen Gerard, 2012. "Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(2), pages 145-172, February.
    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. Chavez, Daniel E. & Palma, Marco A. & Nayga, Rodolfo M. & Mjelde, James W., 2020. "Product availability in discrete choice experiments with private goods," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 36(C).
    2. Mahieu, Pierre-Alexandre & Andersson, Henrik & Beaumais, Olivier & Crastes dit Sourd, Romain & Hess, François-Charles & Wolff, François-Charles, 2017. "Stated preferences: a unique database composed of 1657 recent published articles in journals related to agriculture, environment, or health," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), vol. 98(3), November.
    3. Jennifer A Whitty & Simon Stewart & Melinda J Carrington & Alicia Calderone & Thomas Marwick & John D Horowitz & Henry Krum & Patricia M Davidson & Peter S Macdonald & Christopher Reid & Paul A Scuffh, 2013. "Patient Preferences and Willingness-To-Pay for a Home or Clinic Based Program of Chronic Heart Failure Management: Findings from the Which? Trial," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(3), pages 1-8, March.
    4. Nikita Arora & Matthew Quaife & Kara Hanson & Mylene Lagarde & Dorka Woldesenbet & Abiy Seifu & Romain Crastes dit Sourd, 2022. "Discrete choice analysis of health worker job preferences in Ethiopia: Separating attribute non‐attendance from taste heterogeneity," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(5), pages 806-819, May.
    5. Chen, Gang & Ratcliffe, Julie & Milte, Rachel & Khadka, Jyoti & Kaambwa, Billingsley, 2021. "Quality of care experience in aged care: An Australia-Wide discrete choice experiment to elicit preference weights," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 289(C).
    6. Catherine L. Kling & Daniel J. Phaneuf & Jinhua Zhao, 2012. "From Exxon to BP: Has Some Number Become Better Than No Number?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 26(4), pages 3-26, Fall.
    7. John Buckell & Vrinda Vasavada & Sarah Wordsworth & Dean A. Regier & Matthew Quaife, 2022. "Utility maximization versus regret minimization in health choice behavior: Evidence from four datasets," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(2), pages 363-381, February.
    8. Dunsch, Felipe Alexander & Velenyi, Edit, 2019. "Job Preferences of Frontline Health Workers in Ghana - A Discrete Choice Experiment," SocArXiv bqx5k, Center for Open Science.
    9. Brouwers, Jonas & Cox, Bianca & Van Wilder, Astrid & Claessens, Fien & Bruyneel, Luk & De Ridder, Dirk & Eeckloo, Kristof & Vanhaecht, Kris, 2021. "The future of hospital quality of care policy: A multi-stakeholder discrete choice experiment in Flanders, Belgium," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 125(12), pages 1565-1573.
    10. Diaz, Lina & Houser, Daniel & Ifcher, John & Zarghamee, Homa, 2023. "Estimating social preferences using stated satisfaction: Novel support for inequity aversion," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 155(C).
    11. Dimitrios Gouglas & Kendall Hoyt & Elizabeth Peacocke & Aristidis Kaloudis & Trygve Ottersen & John-Arne Røttingen, 2019. "Setting Strategic Objectives for the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations: An Exploratory Decision Analysis Process," Service Science, INFORMS, vol. 49(6), pages 430-446, November.
    12. 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).
    13. Huls, Samare P.I. & de Bekker-Grob, Esther W., 2022. "Can healthcare choice be predicted using stated preference data? The role of model complexity in a discrete choice experiment about colorectal cancer screening," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 315(C).
    14. Tambor, Marzena & Pavlova, Milena & Rechel, Bernd & Golinowska, Stanisława & Sowada, Christoph & Groot, Wim, 2014. "Willingness to pay for publicly financed health care services in Central and Eastern Europe: Evidence from six countries based on a contingent valuation method," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 193-201.
    15. Marta Trapero-Bertran & Beatriz Rodríguez-Martín & Julio López-Bastida, 2019. "What attributes should be included in a discrete choice experiment related to health technologies? A systematic literature review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(7), pages 1-15, July.
    16. Holte, Jon Helgheim & Kjaer, Trine & Abelsen, Birgit & Olsen, Jan Abel, 2015. "The impact of pecuniary and non-pecuniary incentives for attracting young doctors to rural general practice," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 1-9.
    17. Esther W de Bekker-Grob & Arnold D Bergstra & Michiel C J Bliemer & Inge J M Trijssenaar-Buhre & Alex Burdorf, 2015. "Protective Behaviour of Citizens to Transport Accidents Involving Hazardous Materials: A Discrete Choice Experiment Applied to Populated Areas nearby Waterways," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(11), pages 1-14, November.
    18. Chavez, Daniel E. & Palma, Marco A. & Nayga Jr., Rodolfo M., 2017. "When does real become consequential in non-hypothetical choice experiments?," 2018 Annual Meeting, February 2-6, 2018, Jacksonville, Florida 266327, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    19. Jiang, Shan & Gu, Yuanyuan & Yang, Fan & Wu, Tao & Wang, Hui & Cutler, Henry & Zhang, Lufa, 2020. "Tertiary hospitals or community clinics? An enquiry into the factors affecting patients' choice for healthcare facilities in urban China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 63(C).
    20. Sicsic, Jonathan & Krucien, Nicolas & Franc, Carine, 2016. "What are GPs' preferences for financial and non-financial incentives in cancer screening? Evidence for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancers," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 116-127.

    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:pone00:0152257. 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.