IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0215098.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Exploring women’s preferences for birth settings in England: A discrete choice experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Benjamin Rupert Fletcher
  • Rachel Rowe
  • Jennifer Hollowell
  • Miranda Scanlon
  • Lisa Hinton
  • Oliver Rivero-Arias

Abstract

Objective: To explore pregnant women’s preferences for birth setting in England. Design: Labelled discrete choice experiment (DCE). Setting: Online survey. Sample: Pregnant women recruited through social media and an online panel. Methods: We developed a DCE to assess women’s preferences for four hypothetical birth settings based on seven attributes: reputation, continuity of care, distance from home, time to see a doctor, partner able to stay overnight, chance of straightforward birth and safety for baby. We used a mixed logit model, with setting modelled as an alternative-specific constant, and conducted a scenario analysis to evaluate the impact of changes in attribute levels on uptake of birth settings. Main outcome measures: Women’s preferences for birth setting. Results: 257 pregnant women completed the DCE. All birth setting attributes, except ‘time to see doctor’, were significant in women’s choice (p

Suggested Citation

  • Benjamin Rupert Fletcher & Rachel Rowe & Jennifer Hollowell & Miranda Scanlon & Lisa Hinton & Oliver Rivero-Arias, 2019. "Exploring women’s preferences for birth settings in England: A discrete choice experiment," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(4), pages 1-17, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0215098
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0215098
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0215098
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0215098&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0215098?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. Nasrin Tayyari Dehbarez & Morten Raun Mørkbak & Dorte Gyrd-Hansen & Niels Uldbjerg & Rikke Søgaard, 2018. "Women’s Preferences for Birthing Hospital in Denmark: A Discrete Choice Experiment," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 11(6), pages 613-624, December.
    2. Esther Bekker-Grob & Bas Donkers & Marcel Jonker & Elly Stolk, 2015. "Sample Size Requirements for Discrete-Choice Experiments in Healthcare: a Practical Guide," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 8(5), pages 373-384, October.
    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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).
    5. Zac Coates & Michelle Kelly & Scott Brown, 2024. "The Relationship between Climate Anxiety and Pro-Environment Behaviours," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(12), pages 1-14, June.
    6. 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.
    7. Frimpong, Jemima A. & Helleringer, Stephane, 2020. "Financial Incentives for Downloading COVID–19 Digital Contact Tracing Apps," SocArXiv 9vp7x, Center for Open Science.
    8. John Buckell & Joachim Marti & Jody L. Sindelar, 2017. "Should Flavors be Banned in E-cigarettes? Evidence on Adult Smokers and Recent Quitters from a Discrete Choice Experiment," NBER Working Papers 23865, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    9. Sydenham, Rikke Vognbjerg & Jarbøl, Dorte Ejg & Hansen, Malene Plejdrup & Justesen, Ulrik Stenz & Watson, Verity & Pedersen, Line Bjørnskov, 2022. "Prescribing antibiotics: Factors driving decision-making in general practice. A discrete choice experiment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 305(C).
    10. Sriwastava, Ambuj & Reichert, Peter, 2023. "Reducing sample size requirements by extending discrete choice experiments to indifference elicitation," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 48(C).
    11. Danso, G. K. & Otoo, Miriam & Duy Linh, N. & Madurangi, Ganesha, "undated". "Households’ willingness-to-pay for fish product attributes and implications for market feasibility of wastewater-based aquaculture businesses in Hanoi, Vietnam," Papers published in Journals (Open Access) H048216, International Water Management Institute.
    12. 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).
    13. Koşar, Gizem & Ransom, Tyler & van der Klaauw, Wilbert, 2022. "Understanding migration aversion using elicited counterfactual choice probabilities," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 231(1), pages 123-147.
    14. Osman, Ahmed M.Y. & Wu, Jing & He, Xiaoning & Chen, Gang, 2021. "Eliciting SF-6Dv2 health state utilities using an anchored best-worst scaling technique," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 279(C).
    15. Jackson Bunyangha & Agnes. W. N. Muthumbi & Anthony Egeru & Robert Asiimwe & Dunston W. Ulwodi & Nathan. N. Gichuki & Mwanjalolo. J. G. Majaliwa, 2022. "Preferred Attributes for Sustainable Wetland Management in Mpologoma Catchment, Uganda: A Discrete Choice Experiment," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-18, June.
    16. Nicole Stein & Stefan Spinler & Helga Vanthournout & Vered Blass, 2020. "Consumer Perception of Online Attributes in Circular Economy Activities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-16, March.
    17. Leonardo Cei & Edi Defrancesco & Paola Gatto & Francesco Pagliacci, 2023. "Pay more for me, I’m from the mountains! The role of the EU Mountain Product term and other credence attributes in consumers’ valuation of lamb meat," Agricultural and Food Economics, Springer;Italian Society of Agricultural Economics (SIDEA), vol. 11(1), pages 1-21, December.
    18. Jinzi Zhang & Pu Ge & Xialei Li & Mei Yin & Yujia Wang & Waikit Ming & Jinhui Li & Pei Li & Xinying Sun & Yibo Wu, 2022. "Personality Effects on Chinese Public Preference for the COVID-19 Vaccination: Discrete Choice Experiment and Latent Profile Analysis Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(8), pages 1-20, April.
    19. Uehara, Takuro & Hidaka, Takeshi & Tsuge, Takahiro & Sakurai, Ryo & Cordier, Mateo, 2021. "An adaptive social-ecological system management matrix for guiding ecosystem service improvements," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 50(C).
    20. Lee, Hye-Jae & Bae, Eun-Young, 2017. "Eliciting preferences for medical devices in South Korea: A discrete choice experiment," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 121(3), pages 243-249.

    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:pone00:0215098. 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.