IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/aphecp/v21y2023i5d10.1007_s40258-023-00809-5.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Preferences for Enhanced Primary Care Services Among Older Individuals and Primary Care Physicians

Author

Listed:
  • Semra Ozdemir

    (Duke-NUS Medical School)

  • John Ansah

    (Duke-NUS Medical School)

  • David Matchar

    (Duke-NUS Medical School)

Abstract

Objective We aimed to identify the factors that are most important for community-dwelling older individuals (i.e., users) and primary care (PC) providers to enhance PC services. Methods Discrete choice experiment surveys were administered to 747 individuals aged ≥ 60 years and 242 PC physicians in Singapore between December 2020 and August 2021. Participants were asked to choose between two hypothetical PC clinics and their current clinic. Latent class models were used to estimate the relative attribute importance (RAI) and to calculate the predicted uptake for enhanced PC services. Results Based on the attributes and levels used in this study, the out-of-pocket cost (RAI: 47%) and types of services offered (RAI: 25%) were the most important attributes for users while working hours (RAI: 28%) and patient load (RAI: 25%) were the most important for providers. For out-of-pocket visit costs ranging from Singapore dollars (S)$100 to S$5, users’ predicted uptake for enhanced PC services ranged from 46 to 84%. For daily patient loads ranging from 60 to 20 patients, providers’ predicted uptake ranged from 64 to 91%, assuming their income remains unchanged. Conclusions Our study provides timely insights for the development of strategies to support the government’s new health care initiative (HealthierSG), which places PC at the center of Singapore’s healthcare system. The ability to choose their preferred clinic, low out-of-pocket costs and types of services offered (for users), and reasonable working conditions (for providers) were the key factors for users and providers to participate in enhanced PC services.

Suggested Citation

  • Semra Ozdemir & John Ansah & David Matchar, 2023. "Preferences for Enhanced Primary Care Services Among Older Individuals and Primary Care Physicians," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 21(5), pages 785-797, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:aphecp:v:21:y:2023:i:5:d:10.1007_s40258-023-00809-5
    DOI: 10.1007/s40258-023-00809-5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40258-023-00809-5
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40258-023-00809-5?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Emily Lancsar & Elizabeth Savage, 2004. "Deriving welfare measures from discrete choice experiments: inconsistency between current methods and random utility and welfare theory," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(9), pages 901-907, September.
    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. 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.
    2. Richard Norman & Jane Hall & Deborah Street & Rosalie Viney, 2013. "Efficiency And Equity: A Stated Preference Approach," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(5), pages 568-581, May.
    3. 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.
    4. Emma McIntosh, 2006. "Using Discrete Choice Experiments within a Cost-Benefit Analysis Framework," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 24(9), pages 855-868, September.
    5. John Hutton, 2012. "‘Health Economics’ and the evolution of economic evaluation of health technologies," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(1), pages 13-18, January.
    6. Timothy R. Silberg & Robert B. Richardson & Maria Claudia Lopez, 2020. "Maize farmer preferences for intercropping systems to reduce Striga in Malawi," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 12(2), pages 269-283, April.
    7. 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.
    8. Diego Ossa & Andrew Briggs & Emma McIntosh & Warren Cowell & Tim Littlewood & Mark Sculpher, 2007. "Recombinant Erythropoietin for Chemotherapy-Related Anaemia," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 25(3), pages 223-237, March.
    9. Denise Bijlenga & Gouke J. Bonsel & Erwin Birnie, 2011. "Eliciting willingness to pay in obstetrics: comparing a direct and an indirect valuation method for complex health outcomes," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(11), pages 1392-1406, November.
    10. Chandoevwit, Worawan & Wasi, Nada, 2020. "Incorporating discrete choice experiments into policy decisions: Case of designing public long-term care insurance," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 258(C).
    11. Carol Mansfield & Daniel J. Phaneuf & F. Reed Johnson & Jui-Chen Yang & Robert Beach, 2008. "Preferences for Public Lands Management under Competing Uses: The Case of Yellowstone National Park," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 84(2), pages 282-305.
    12. F. Reed Johnson & Ateesha F. Mohamed & Semra Özdemir & Deborah A. Marshall & Kathryn A. Phillips, 2011. "How does cost matter in health‐care discrete‐choice experiments?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(3), pages 323-330, March.
    13. Nieboer, Anna P. & Koolman, Xander & Stolk, Elly A., 2010. "Preferences for long-term care services: Willingness to pay estimates derived from a discrete choice experiment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 70(9), pages 1317-1325, May.
    14. Hackbarth, André & Madlener, Reinhard, 2016. "Willingness-to-pay for alternative fuel vehicle characteristics: A stated choice study for Germany," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 89-111.
    15. Ivan Sever & Miroslav Verbič & Eva Klaric Sever, 2020. "Estimating Attribute-Specific Willingness-to-Pay Values from a Health Care Contingent Valuation Study: A Best–Worst Choice Approach," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 18(1), pages 97-107, February.
    16. Emily Lancsar & Cam Donaldson, 2005. "Discrete choice experiments in health economics: Distinguishing between the method and its application," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 6(4), pages 314-316, December.
    17. Patricia Cubi-Molla & Martin Buxton & Nancy Devlin, 2021. "Allocating Public Spending Efficiently: Is There a Need for a Better Mechanism to Inform Decisions in the UK and Elsewhere?," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 19(5), pages 635-644, September.
    18. Osborne, Matthew & Lambe, Fiona & Ran, Ylva & Dehmel, Naira & Tabacco, Giovanni Alberto & Balungira, Joshua & Pérez-Viana, Borja & Widmark, Erik & Holmlid, Stefan & Verschoor, Arjan, 2022. "Designing development interventions: The application of service design and discrete choice experiments in complex settings," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 158(C).
    19. Ebenezer Kwabena Tetteh & Steve Morris & Nigel Titcheneker-Hooker, 2017. "Discrete-choice modelling of patient preferences for modes of drug administration," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 7(1), pages 1-14, December.
    20. Scott, Anthony & Witt, Julia & Humphreys, John & Joyce, Catherine & Kalb, Guyonne & Jeon, Sung-Hee & McGrail, Matthew, 2013. "Getting doctors into the bush: General Practitioners' preferences for rural location," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 33-44.

    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:spr:aphecp:v:21:y:2023:i:5:d:10.1007_s40258-023-00809-5. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.