IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v28y2008i4p554-566.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Wide Social Participation in Prioritizing Patients on Waiting Lists for Joint Replacement: A Conjoint Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • L. Sampietro-Colom

    (Office for the Assessment of Innovation and New Technologies, Fundació Clínic, Barcelona, Spain, lsampiet@clinic.ub.es, Catalan Agency for Health Technology Assessment and Research (CAHTA), Barcelona, Spain)

  • M. Espallargues

    (Catalan Agency for Health Technology Assessment and Research (CAHTA), Barcelona, Spain)

  • E. Rodríguez

    (Department of Applied Economics, Universidad de Vigo, Vigo, Spain)

  • M. Comas

    (Evaluation and Clinical Epidemiology Department, Hospital del Mar-IMAS, Barcelona, Spain, Health Services Research Unit, Institut Municipal d'Investigació Médica (IMIM-Hospital del Mar), Barcelona, Spain)

  • J. Alonso

    (Health Services Research Unit, Institut Municipal d'Investigació Médica (IMIM-Hospital del Mar), Barcelona, Spain, Universitat Autónoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain)

  • X. Castells

    (Evaluation and Clinical Epidemiology Department, Hospital del Mar-IMAS, Barcelona, Spain, Health Services Research Unit, Institut Municipal d'Investigació Médica (IMIM-Hospital del Mar), Barcelona, Spain (MC, JA, XC))

  • J.L. Pinto

    (Centre for Research in Economy and Health (CRES), Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona, Spain)

Abstract

Objective. The aim was to develop a priority scoring system for patients on waiting lists for joint replacement based on a wide social participation, and to analyze the differences among participants. Methods. Conjoint analysis. Focus groups in combination with a nominal technique were employed to identify the priority criteria ( N= 36). A rank-ordered logit model was then applied for scoring estimations. Participants ( N= 860) represented: consultants, allied-health professionals, patients and their relatives, and the general population of Catalonia. Results. Clinical and social criteria were selected, and their relative importance (over 100 points) was: pain (33), difficulty in doing activities of daily living (21), disease severity (18), limitations on ability to work (10), having someone to look after the patient (9), being a caregiver (6), and recovery probability (4). Estimated criteria coefficients had the expected positive sign and all were statistically significant ( P

Suggested Citation

  • L. Sampietro-Colom & M. Espallargues & E. Rodríguez & M. Comas & J. Alonso & X. Castells & J.L. Pinto, 2008. "Wide Social Participation in Prioritizing Patients on Waiting Lists for Joint Replacement: A Conjoint Analysis," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 28(4), pages 554-566, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:28:y:2008:i:4:p:554-566
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X08315235
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X08315235
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X08315235?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. Julie Ratcliffe, 2000. "Public preferences for the allocation of donor liver grafts for transplantation," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 9(2), pages 137-148, March.
    2. Ryan, Mandy, 1999. "Using conjoint analysis to take account of patient preferences and go beyond health outcomes: an application to in vitro fertilisation," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 48(4), pages 535-546, February.
    3. Bowling, Ann & Jacobson, Bobbie & Southgate, Lesley, 1993. "Explorations in consultation of the public and health professionals on priority setting in an inner London health district," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 37(7), pages 851-857, October.
    4. Cookson, Richard & Dolan, Paul, 1999. "Public views on health care rationing: a group discussion study," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(1-2), pages 63-74, September.
    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. Fabián Silva-Aravena & Eduardo Álvarez-Miranda & César A. Astudillo & Luis González-Martínez & José G. Ledezma, 2021. "Patients’ Prioritization on Surgical Waiting Lists: A Decision Support System," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(10), pages 1-27, May.
    2. Álvarez, Begoña & Rodríguez-Míguez, Eva, 2011. "Patients' self-interested preferences: Empirical evidence from a priority setting experiment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 72(8), pages 1317-1324, April.
    3. Solans-Domènech, Maite & Adam, Paula & Tebé, Cristian & Espallargues, Mireia, 2013. "Developing a universal tool for the prioritization of patients waiting for elective surgery," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 113(1), pages 118-126.

    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. Joanna Coast, 2001. "Citizens, their agents and health care rationing: an exploratory study using qualitative methods," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 10(2), pages 159-174, March.
    2. Colin Green & Karen Gerard, 2009. "Exploring the social value of health‐care interventions: a stated preference discrete choice experiment," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(8), pages 951-976, August.
    3. Paul Dolan & Rebecca Shaw & Aki Tsuchiya & Alan Williams, 2005. "QALY maximisation and people's preferences: a methodological review of the literature," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(2), pages 197-208, February.
    4. Jeannette Winkelhage & Adele Diederich, 2012. "The Relevance of Personal Characteristics in Allocating Health Care Resources—Controversial Preferences of Laypersons with Different Educational Backgrounds," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 9(1), pages 1-21, January.
    5. Jennifer Whitty & Sharyn Rundle-Thiele & Paul Scuffham, 2012. "Insights from triangulation of two purchase choice elicitation methods to predict social decision making in healthcare," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 10(2), pages 113-126, March.
    6. David L.B. Schwappach, 2003. "Does it matter who you are or what you gain? an experimental study of preferences for resource allocation," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(4), pages 255-267, April.
    7. Mossialos, Elias & King, Derek, 1999. "Citizens and rationing: analysis of a European survey," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(1-2), pages 75-135, September.
    8. Abelson, Julia & Eyles, John & McLeod, Christopher B. & Collins, Patricia & McMullan, Colin & Forest, Pierre-Gerlier, 2003. "Does deliberation make a difference? Results from a citizens panel study of health goals priority setting," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 66(1), pages 95-106, October.
    9. Robson, Matthew & O’Donnell, Owen & Van Ourti, Tom, 2024. "Aversion to health inequality — Pure, income-related and income-caused," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    10. Tappenden, P & Brazier, J & Ratcliffe, J, 2006. "Does the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence take account of factors such as uncertainty and equity as well as incremental cost-effectiveness in commissioning health care services? A," MPRA Paper 29772, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    11. 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.
    12. Coast, Joanna, 2018. "A history that goes hand in hand: Reflections on the development of health economics and the role played by Social Science & Medicine, 1967–2017," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 196(C), pages 227-232.
    13. Mooney, Gavin, 2005. "Communitarian claims and community capabilities: furthering priority setting?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 60(2), pages 247-255, January.
    14. 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.
    15. Kettlewell, Nathan & Walker, Matthew J. & Yoo, Hong Il, 2024. "Alternative Models of Preference Heterogeneity for Elicited Choice Probabilities," IZA Discussion Papers 16821, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    16. Mandy Ryan & Angela Bate, 2001. "Testing the assumptions of rationality, continuity and symmetry when applying discrete choice experiments in health care," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 8(1), pages 59-63.
    17. 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.
    18. Brent Opmeer & Corianne Borgie & Ben Mol & Patrick Bossuyt, 2010. "Assessing Preferences Regarding Healthcare Interventions that Involve Non-Health Outcomes," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 3(1), pages 1-10, March.
    19. Kara Hanson & Barbara McPake & Pamela Nakamba & Luke Archard, 2005. "Preferences for hospital quality in Zambia: results from a discrete choice experiment," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(7), pages 687-701, July.
    20. Adele Diederich & Jeannette Winkelhage & Norman Wirsik, 2011. "Age as a Criterion for Setting Priorities in Health Care? A Survey of the German Public View," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(8), pages 1-10, August.

    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:sae:medema:v:28:y:2008:i:4:p:554-566. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.