IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/patien/v11y2018i6d10.1007_s40271-018-0313-9.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Women’s Preferences for Birthing Hospital in Denmark: A Discrete Choice Experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Nasrin Tayyari Dehbarez

    (DEFACTUM
    Aarhus University)

  • Morten Raun Mørkbak

    (Incentive)

  • Dorte Gyrd-Hansen

    (University of Southern Denmark)

  • Niels Uldbjerg

    (Aarhus University Hospital)

  • Rikke Søgaard

    (Aarhus University
    Aarhus University)

Abstract

Background Free choice of hospital has been introduced in many healthcare systems to accommodate patient preferences and incentivize hospitals to compete; however, little is known about what patients actually prefer. Objectives This study assessed women’s preferences for birthing hospital in Denmark by quantifying the utility and trade-offs of hospital attributes. Methods We conducted a discrete-choice experiment survey with 12 hypothetical scenarios in which women had to choose between three hospitals characterized by five attributes: continuity of midwifery care, availability of a neonatal intensive care unit (NICU), hospital services offered, level of specialization to handle rare events, and travel time. A random parameter logit model was used to estimate the utility and marginal willingness to travel (WTT) for improvements in other hospital attributes. Results A total of 517 women completed the survey. Significant preferences were expressed for all attributes (p

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:patien:v:11:y:2018:i:6:d:10.1007_s40271-018-0313-9
    DOI: 10.1007/s40271-018-0313-9
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40271-018-0313-9
    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/s40271-018-0313-9?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. Fawsitt, Christopher G. & Bourke, Jane & Greene, Richard A. & McElroy, Brendan & Krucien, Nicolas & Murphy, Rosemary & Lutomski, Jennifer E., 2017. "What do women want? Valuing women’s preferences and estimating demand for alternative models of maternity care using a discrete choice experiment," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 121(11), pages 1154-1160.
    2. Moscelli, Giuseppe & Siciliani, Luigi & Gutacker, Nils & Cookson, Richard, 2018. "Socioeconomic inequality of access to healthcare: Does choice explain the gradient?," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 290-314.
    3. Moscelli, Giuseppe & Siciliani, Luigi & Gutacker, Nils & Gravelle, Hugh, 2016. "Location, quality and choice of hospital: Evidence from England 2002–2013," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 112-124.
    4. Mandy Ryan & Verity Watson, 2009. "Comparing welfare estimates from payment card contingent valuation and discrete choice experiments," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(4), pages 389-401, April.
    5. Brown, Paul & Panattoni, Laura & Cameron, Linda & Knox, Stephanie & Ashton, Toni & Tenbensel, Tim & Windsor, John, 2015. "Hospital sector choice and support for public hospital care in New Zealand: Results from a labeled discrete choice survey," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 118-127.
    6. Hensher,David A. & Rose,John M. & Greene,William H., 2015. "Applied Choice Analysis," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107465923, January.
    7. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521747387, January.
    8. Emily Lancsar & Jordan Louviere, 2006. "Deleting ‘irrational’ responses from discrete choice experiments: a case of investigating or imposing preferences?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(8), pages 797-811, August.
    9. Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Rose, John M., 2013. "Confidence intervals of willingness-to-pay for random coefficient logit models," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 199-214.
    10. Yang, Jui-Chen & Johnson, F. Reed & Kilambi, Vikram & Mohamed, Ateesha F., 2015. "Sample size and utility-difference precision in discrete-choice experiments: A meta-simulation approach," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 16(C), pages 50-57.
    11. Vrangbæk, Karsten & Østergren, Katarina & Birk, Hans Okkels & Winblad, Ulrika, 2007. "Patient reactions to hospital choice in Norway, Denmark, and Sweden," Health Economics, Policy and Law, Cambridge University Press, vol. 2(2), pages 125-152, April.
    12. Galizzi, Matteo M. & Machado, Sara R. & Miniaci, Raffaele, 2016. "Temporal stability, cross-validity, and external validity of risk preferences measures: experimental evidence from a UK representative sample," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 67554, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    13. Pavlova, Milena & Hendrix, Marijke & Nouwens, Elvira & Nijhuis, Jan & van Merode, Godefridus, 2009. "The choice of obstetric care by low-risk pregnant women in the Netherlands: Implications for policy and management," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 93(1), pages 27-34, November.
    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. 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.

    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. Lippi Bruni, Matteo & Ugolini, Cristina & Verzulli, Rossella, 2021. "Should I wait or should I go? Travelling versus waiting for better healthcare," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(C).
    3. Kotu, Bekele Hundie & Oyinbo, Oyakhilomen & Hoeschle-Zeledon, Irmgard & Nurudeen, Abdul Rahman & Kizito, Fred & Boyubie, Benedict, 2022. "Smallholder farmers’ preferences for sustainable intensification attributes in maize production: Evidence from Ghana," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 152(C).
    4. Sharma, Reema Bera & Majumdar, Bandhan Bandhu & Maitra, Bhargab, 2024. "Commuter and non-commuter preferences for plug-in hybrid electric vehicle: A case study of Delhi and Kolkata, India," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 103(C).
    5. Mara Hammerle & Paul Crosby & Rohan Best, 2021. "Super‐sizing Renewable Energy Investment: Examining the Portfolio Preferences of Superannuation Fund Members," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 97(317), pages 267-284, June.
    6. Markova-Nenova, Nonka & Wätzold, Frank, 2017. "Fairness to dairy cows or fairness to farmers: What counts more in the preferences of conventional milk buyers for ethical attributes of milk?," MPRA Paper 83066, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. Markova-Nenova, Nonka & Wätzold, Frank, 2018. "Fair to the cow or fair to the farmer? The preferences of conventional milk buyers for ethical attributes of milk," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 223-239.
    8. Andreas Niedermayr & Lena Schaller & Petr Mariel & Pia Kieninger & Jochen Kantelhardt, 2018. "Heterogeneous Preferences for Public Goods Provided by Agriculture in a Region of Intensive Agricultural Production: The Case of the Marchfeld," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-18, June.
    9. 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.
    10. Bjørnåvold, Amalie & David, Maia & Bohan, David A. & Gibert, Caroline & Rousselle, Jean-Marc & Van Passel, Steven, 2022. "Why does France not meet its pesticide reduction targets? Farmers' socio-economic trade-offs when adopting agro-ecological practices," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 198(C).
    11. Michael Clark & Domino Determann & Stavros Petrou & Domenico Moro & Esther Bekker-Grob, 2014. "Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: A Review of the Literature," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 32(9), pages 883-902, September.
    12. Chorus, Caspar G. & Pudāne, Baiba & Mouter, Niek & Campbell, Danny, 2018. "Taboo trade-off aversion: A discrete choice model and empirical analysis," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 27(C), pages 37-49.
    13. Canessa, Carolin & Venus, Terese E. & Wiesmeier, Miriam & Mennig, Philipp & Sauer, Johannes, 2023. "Incentives, Rewards or Both in Payments for Ecosystem Services: Drawing a Link Between Farmers' Preferences and Biodiversity Levels," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 213(C).
    14. Sant'Anna, Ana Claudia & Bergtold, Jason & Shanoyan, Aleksan & Caldas, Marcellus & Granco, Gabriel, 2021. "Deal or No Deal? Analysis of Bioenergy Feedstock Contract Choice with Multiple Opt-out Options and Contract Attribute Substitutability," 2021 Conference, August 17-31, 2021, Virtual 315289, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    15. Boyce, Christopher & Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Hanley, Nick, 2019. "Personality and economic choices," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 82-100.
    16. Qian, Lixian & Grisolía, Jose M. & Soopramanien, Didier, 2019. "The impact of service and government-policy attributes on consumer preferences for electric vehicles in China," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 70-84.
    17. Roy Brouwer & Solomon Tarfasa, 2020. "Testing hypothetical bias in a framed field experiment," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 68(3), pages 343-357, September.
    18. Scaccia, Luisa & Marcucci, Edoardo & Gatta, Valerio, 2023. "Prediction and confidence intervals of willingness-to-pay for mixed logit models," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 54-78.
    19. Joachim Marti, 2012. "Assessing preferences for improved smoking cessation medications: a discrete choice experiment," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 13(5), pages 533-548, October.
    20. Esther W. Bekker-Grob & Bas Donkers & Jorien Veldwijk & Marcel F. Jonker & Sylvia Buis & Jan Huisman & Patrick Bindels, 2021. "What Factors Influence Non-Participation Most in Colorectal Cancer Screening? A Discrete Choice Experiment," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 14(2), pages 269-281, March.

    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:patien:v:11:y:2018:i:6:d:10.1007_s40271-018-0313-9. 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.