IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/patien/v15y2022i4d10.1007_s40271-021-00568-2.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Patient and Public Preferences for Coordinated Care in Switzerland: Development of a Discrete Choice Experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Anna Nicolet

    (University of Lausanne)

  • Clémence Perraudin

    (University of Lausanne)

  • Joël Wagner

    (University of Lausanne)

  • Ingrid Gilles

    (University of Lausanne)

  • Nicolas Krucien

    (Evidera)

  • Isabelle Peytremann-Bridevaux

    (University of Lausanne)

  • Joachim Marti

    (University of Lausanne)

Abstract

Objective Our objective was to develop and test a discrete choice experiment (DCE) eliciting public and patient preferences for better-coordinated care in Switzerland. Methods We applied a multistage mixed-methods procedure using qualitative and quantitative approaches. First, to identify attributes, we performed a review of the DCE literature in healthcare with a focus on chronic care. Next, attribute selection involved stakeholders (N = 7) from various healthcare sectors to select the most relevant and actionable attributes, followed by three organized focus groups involving the general public and patients (N = 21) to verify the selection and the clarity of the DCE tasks and explanations. Finally, we conducted an online pilot in the target population to test the survey and obtain priors for a final six tested attributes to refine the final design of the experiment. Results After identifying an initial 33 attributes, a final list of six attributes was selected following stakeholder involvement and the three focus groups involving the target population. At the online pilot-testing stage with 301 participants, the majority of respondents found the DCE choice tasks socially relevant for Switzerland but challenging. The quality of the answers was relatively high. Most attributes had signs matching those in the literature and focus group discussions. Conclusion This article will be useful to researchers designing DCEs from a broad health policy perspective. The multistage approach involving a range of stakeholders was essential for the development of a DCE that is relevant for policy makers and well-accepted by the general public and patients.

Suggested Citation

  • Anna Nicolet & Clémence Perraudin & Joël Wagner & Ingrid Gilles & Nicolas Krucien & Isabelle Peytremann-Bridevaux & Joachim Marti, 2022. "Patient and Public Preferences for Coordinated Care in Switzerland: Development of a Discrete Choice Experiment," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 15(4), pages 485-496, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:patien:v:15:y:2022:i:4:d:10.1007_s40271-021-00568-2
    DOI: 10.1007/s40271-021-00568-2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40271-021-00568-2
    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/s40271-021-00568-2?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. Sachiko Ozawa & Simrun Grewal & John F.P. Bridges, 2016. "Household Size and the Decision to Purchase Health Insurance in Cambodia: Results of a Discrete-Choice Experiment with Scale Adjustment," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 14(2), pages 195-204, April.
    2. Sophy Barber & Hilary Bekker & Joachim Marti & Sue Pavitt & Balvinder Khambay & David Meads, 2019. "Development of a Discrete-Choice Experiment (DCE) to Elicit Adolescent and Parent Preferences for Hypodontia Treatment," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 12(1), pages 137-148, February.
    3. Denburg, Avram E. & Ungar, Wendy J. & Chen, Shiyi & Hurley, Jeremiah & Abelson, Julia, 2020. "Does moral reasoning influence public values for health care priority setting?: A population-based randomized stated preference survey," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 124(6), pages 647-658.
    4. Marsha Wittink & Mark Cary & Thomas TenHave & Jonathan Baron & Joseph Gallo, 2010. "Towards Patient-Centered Care for Depression," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 3(3), pages 145-157, September.
    5. Daniella Meeker & Christin Thompson & Greg Strylewicz & Tara K. Knight & Jason N. Doctor, 2015. "Use of Insurance Against a Small Loss as an Incentive Strategy," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 12(3), pages 122-129.
    6. van der Heide, Iris & Snoeijs, Sanne & Quattrini, Sabrina & Struckmann, Verena & Hujala, Anneli & Schellevis, François & Rijken, Mieke, 2018. "Patient-centeredness of integrated care programs for people with multimorbidity. Results from the European ICARE4EU project," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 122(1), pages 36-43.
    7. Schusselé Filliettaz, Séverine & Berchtold, Peter & Kohler, Dimitri & Peytremann-Bridevaux, Isabelle, 2018. "Integrated care in Switzerland: Results from the first nationwide survey," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 122(6), pages 568-576.
    8. 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.
    9. Espinosa-González, Ana Belén & Delaney, Brendan C. & Marti, Joachim & Darzi, Ara, 2021. "The role of the state in financing and regulating primary care in Europe: a taxonomy," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 125(2), pages 168-176.
    10. Negrín, Miguel A. & Pinilla, Jaime & León, Carmelo J., 2008. "Willingness to pay for alternative policies for patients with Alzheimer’s Disease," Health Economics, Policy and Law, Cambridge University Press, vol. 3(3), pages 257-275, July.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. Melvin Obadha & Edwine Barasa & Jacob Kazungu & Gilbert Abotisem Abiiro & Jane Chuma, 2019. "Attribute development and level selection for a discrete choice experiment to elicit the preferences of health care providers for capitation payment mechanism in Kenya," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 9(1), pages 1-19, December.
    14. Irit Chudner & Margalit Goldfracht & Hadass Goldblatt & Anat Drach-Zahavy & Khaled Karkabi, 2019. "Video or In-Clinic Consultation? Selection of Attributes as Preparation for a Discrete Choice Experiment Among Key Stakeholders," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 12(1), pages 69-82, February.
    15. Lagarde, Mylene & Erens, Bob & Mays, Nicholas, 2015. "Determinants of the choice of GP practice registration in England: Evidence from a discrete choice experiment," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(4), pages 427-436.
    16. Ellen M. Janssen & Jodi B. Segal & John F. P. Bridges, 2016. "A Framework for Instrument Development of a Choice Experiment: An Application to Type 2 Diabetes," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 9(5), pages 465-479, October.
    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. Jonker, Marcel F., 2024. "Level overlap and level color coding revisited: Improved attribute attendance and higher choice consistency in discrete choice experiments," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 52(C).
    2. Nicolet, Anna & Perraudin, Clémence & Krucien, Nicolas & Wagner, Joël & Peytremann-Bridevaux, Isabelle & Marti, Joachim, 2023. "Preferences of older adults for healthcare models designed to improve care coordination: Evidence from Western Switzerland," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 132(C).

    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. Matthias Klumpp & Dominic Loske & Silvio Bicciato, 2022. "COVID-19 health policy evaluation: integrating health and economic perspectives with a data envelopment analysis approach," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 23(8), pages 1263-1285, November.
    2. Dudinskaya, Emilia Cubero & Naspetti, Simona & Zanoli, Raffaele, 2020. "Using eye-tracking as an aid to design on-screen choice experiments," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 36(C).
    3. 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.
    4. Nicolet, Anna & Perraudin, Clémence & Krucien, Nicolas & Wagner, Joël & Peytremann-Bridevaux, Isabelle & Marti, Joachim, 2023. "Preferences of older adults for healthcare models designed to improve care coordination: Evidence from Western Switzerland," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 132(C).
    5. Feng Xie & Eleanor Pullenayegum & Kathryn Gaebel & Mark Oppe & Paul Krabbe, 2014. "Eliciting preferences to the EQ-5D-5L health states: discrete choice experiment or multiprofile case of best–worst scaling?," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 15(3), pages 281-288, April.
    6. Chiara Seghieri & Alessandro Mengoni & Sabina Nuti, 2014. "Applying discrete choice modelling in a priority setting: an investigation of public preferences for primary care models," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 15(7), pages 773-785, September.
    7. Eve Wittenberg, 2016. "Instrument Development in Choice Experiments. Commentary on: “Applying a Framework for Instrument Development of a Choice Experiment to Measure Treatment Preferences in Type 2 Diabetes”," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 9(5), pages 379-381, October.
    8. Damian Clarke & Sonia Oreffice & Climent Quintana‐Domeque, 2021. "On the Value of Birth Weight," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 83(5), pages 1130-1159, October.
    9. Mehmet Kutluay & Roy Brouwer & Haripriya Gundimeda & Nitin Lokhande & Richard S. J. Tol, 2017. "Public preferences and valuation of new malaria risk," Working Paper Series 1917, Department of Economics, University of Sussex Business School.
    10. Martin Buxton & James Chambers, 2011. "What values do the public want their health care systems to use in evaluating technologies?," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 12(4), pages 285-288, August.
    11. Vestina Vainauskienė & Rimgailė Vaitkienė, 2021. "Enablers of Patient Knowledge Empowerment for Self-Management of Chronic Disease: An Integrative Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(5), pages 1-24, February.
    12. 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.
    13. Jennifer A. Whitty & Julie Ratcliffe & Gang Chen & Paul A. Scuffham, 2014. "Australian Public Preferences for the Funding of New Health Technologies," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 34(5), pages 638-654, July.
    14. Gu, Yuanyuan & Lancsar, Emily & Ghijben, Peter & Butler, James RG & Donaldson, Cam, 2015. "Attributes and weights in health care priority setting: A systematic review of what counts and to what extent," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 41-52.
    15. Kim Edmunds & Laura Wall & Scott Brown & Andrew Searles & Anthony P. Shakeshaft & Christopher M. Doran, 2021. "Exploring Community-Based Options for Reducing Youth Crime," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(10), pages 1-12, May.
    16. 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.
    17. Arne Hole & Julie Kolstad, 2012. "Mixed logit estimation of willingness to pay distributions: a comparison of models in preference and WTP space using data from a health-related choice experiment," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 42(2), pages 445-469, April.
    18. Alison Pearce & Mark Harrison & Verity Watson & Deborah J. Street & Kirsten Howard & Nick Bansback & Stirling Bryan, 2021. "Respondent Understanding in Discrete Choice Experiments: A Scoping Review," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 14(1), pages 17-53, January.
    19. Aizaki, Hideo & Fogarty, James, 2019. "An R package and tutorial for case 2 best–worst scaling," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 32(C), pages 1-1.
    20. López-Bastida, J. & Ramos-Goñi, J.M. & Aranda-Reneo, I. & Trapero-Bertran, M. & Kanavos, P. & Rodriguez Martin, B., 2019. "Using a stated preference discrete choice experiment to assess societal value from the perspective of decision-makers in Europe. Does it work for rare diseases?," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 123(2), pages 152-158.

    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:15:y:2022:i:4:d:10.1007_s40271-021-00568-2. 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.