IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/patien/v1y2008i4p317-330.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Using Conjoint Analysis to Model the Preferences of Different Patient Segments for Attributes of Patient-Centered Care

Author

Listed:
  • Charles Cunningham
  • Ken Deal
  • Heather Rimas
  • Heather Campbell
  • Ann Russell
  • Jennifer Henderson
  • Anne Matheson
  • Blake Melnick

Abstract

Background: A consensus regarding the components of a patient-centered approach to healthcare does not exist. Although patient-centered care should be predicated on patient preferences, existing models provide little evidence regarding the relative importance of different care processes to patients themselves. Objective: To involve patients in the design of a model of patient-centered care for a corporation of Canadian teaching hospitals. Methods: Using themes from focus groups and interviews, a conjoint survey was developed comprising 14 four-level patient-centered care attributes. Sawtooth Software’s Choice Based Conjoint module (version 2.6.7) was used to design the survey. Each participant completed 15 choice tasks, each task presenting a choice between three hospitals described by a different combination of patient-centered care attribute levels. Latent class analysis was used to identify segments of participants with similar patient-centered care choice patterns. Randomized First Choice simulations were used to predict the percentage of participants in each segment who would choose different approaches to improving patient-centered care. Representative hospital service users were recruited from a corporation of five Canadian teaching hospitals serving a regional population of 2.2 million. Results: A total of 508 patients and family members of children completed a choice-based conjoint survey. Latent class analysis revealed two segments: an informed care segment and a convenient care segment. Participants in the informed care segment (71.3% of the sample) were more likely to have higher education, be non-immigrants, speak English as a first language, and be outpatients or family members. The information needed to understand health concerns, an opportunity to learn health improvement skills, teams that communicated effectively, short waiting times, and collaborative treatment planning were more important to the informed care segment than to the convenient care segment. Convenient settings, a welcoming environment, and ease of internal access exerted a greater influence on the choices made by the convenient care segment. Both segments preferred hospitals that provided health information and gave prompt feedback on patient progress. Conclusions: This study suggests that many patients would exchange an increase in waiting times for prompt feedback, information, and the skills to improve their health. Copyright Adis Data Information BV 2008

Suggested Citation

  • Charles Cunningham & Ken Deal & Heather Rimas & Heather Campbell & Ann Russell & Jennifer Henderson & Anne Matheson & Blake Melnick, 2008. "Using Conjoint Analysis to Model the Preferences of Different Patient Segments for Attributes of Patient-Centered Care," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 1(4), pages 317-330, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:patien:v:1:y:2008:i:4:p:317-330
    DOI: 10.2165/1312067-200801040-00013
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.2165/1312067-200801040-00013
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.2165/1312067-200801040-00013?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. Joanna Coast, 1999. "The appropriate uses of qualitative methods in health economics," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 8(4), pages 345-353, June.
    2. Anders Gustafsson & Andreas Herrmann & Frank Huber, 2007. "Conjoint Analysis as an Instrument of Market Research Practice," Springer Books, in: Anders Gustafsson & Andreas Herrmann & Frank Huber (ed.), Conjoint Measurement, edition 0, chapter 1, pages 3-30, Springer.
    3. Scott, Anthony & Watson, M. Stuart & Ross, Sue, 2003. "Eliciting preferences of the community for out of hours care provided by general practitioners: a stated preference discrete choice experiment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 56(4), pages 803-814, February.
    4. Joel Huber & Bryan Orme & Richard Miller, 2007. "Dealing with Product Similarity in Conjoint Simulations," Springer Books, in: Anders Gustafsson & Andreas Herrmann & Frank Huber (ed.), Conjoint Measurement, edition 0, chapter 17, pages 347-362, Springer.
    5. repec:bla:scotjp:v:46:y:1999:i:2:p:111-34 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Venkatram Ramaswamy & Steven H. Cohen, 2007. "Latent Class Models for Conjoint Analysis," Springer Books, in: Anders Gustafsson & Andreas Herrmann & Frank Huber (ed.), Conjoint Measurement, edition 0, chapter 15, pages 295-319, Springer.
    7. Anthony Scott & Sandra Vick, 1999. "Patients, Doctors and Contracts: An Application of Principal‐Agent Theory to the Doctor‐Patient Relationship," Scottish Journal of Political Economy, Scottish Economic Society, vol. 46(2), pages 111-134, May.
    8. Green, Paul E & Srinivasan, V, 1978. "Conjoint Analysis in Consumer Research: Issues and Outlook," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 5(2), pages 103-123, Se.
    9. Jessina C. McGregor & Anthony D. Harris & Jon P. Furuno & Douglas D. Bradham & Eli N. Perencevich, 2007. "Relative Influence of Antibiotic Therapy Attributes on Physician Choice in Treating Acute Uncomplicated Pyelonephritis," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 27(4), pages 387-394, July.
    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. Kucukyazici, Beste & Zhang, Yue & Ardestani-Jaafari, Amir & Song, Lijie, 2020. "Incorporating patient preferences in the design and operation of cancer screening facility networks," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 287(2), pages 616-632.
    2. Klein, Michael G. & Verter, Vedat & Moses, Brian G., 2020. "Designing a rural network of dialysis facilities," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 282(3), pages 1088-1100.

    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. Charles Cunningham & Ken Deal & Yvonne Chen, 2010. "Adaptive Choice-Based Conjoint Analysis," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 3(4), pages 257-273, December.
    2. Hein, Maren & Goeken, Nils & Kurz, Peter & Steiner, Winfried J., 2022. "Using Hierarchical Bayes draws for improving shares of choice predictions in conjoint simulations: A study based on conjoint choice data," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 297(2), pages 630-651.
    3. Megha Swami & Hugh Gravelle & Anthony Scott & Jenny Williams, 2018. "Hours worked by general practitioners and waiting times for primary care," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(10), pages 1513-1532, October.
    4. Schön, Cornelia, 2010. "On the product line selection problem under attraction choice models of consumer behavior," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 206(1), pages 260-264, October.
    5. Mandy Ryan & Verity Watson & Vikki Entwistle, 2009. "Rationalising the ‘irrational’: a think aloud study of discrete choice experiment responses," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(3), pages 321-336, March.
    6. Abdul Hamid Mar Iman & Fu Yek Pieng & Christopher Gan, 2012. "A Conjoint Analysis of Buyers' Preferences for Residential Property," International Real Estate Review, Global Social Science Institute, vol. 15(1), pages 73-105.
    7. 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.
    8. Charles Cunningham & Linda Kostrzewa & Heather Rimas & Yvonne Chen & Ken Deal & Susan Blatz & Alida Bowman & Don Buchanan & Randy Calvert & Barbara Jennings, 2013. "Modeling Organizational Justice Improvements in a Pediatric Health Service," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 6(1), pages 45-59, March.
    9. Foster, Michele M. & Earl, Peter E. & Haines, Terry P. & Mitchell, Geoffrey K., 2010. "Unravelling the concept of consumer preference: Implications for health policy and optimal planning in primary care," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 97(2-3), pages 105-112, October.
    10. Robert J. Johnston & Kevin J. Boyle & Wiktor (Vic) Adamowicz & Jeff Bennett & Roy Brouwer & Trudy Ann Cameron & W. Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Riccardo Scarpa & Roger Tourangeau & Ch, 2017. "Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(2), pages 319-405.
    11. Winfried Steiner & Harald Hruschka, 2002. "A Probabilistic One-Step Approach to the Optimal Product Line Design Problem Using Conjoint and Cost Data," Review of Marketing Science Working Papers 1-4-1003, Berkeley Electronic Press.
    12. Merja Halme & Kari Linden & Kimmo Kääriä, 2009. "Patients’ Preferences for Generic and Branded Over-the-Counter Medicines," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 2(4), pages 243-255, December.
    13. Dufhues, T. & Buchenrieder, G., 2004. "Der Beitrag der Conjoint Analyse zur nachfrageorintierten Entwicklung des ländlichen Finanzsektors in Vietnam," Proceedings “Schriften der Gesellschaft für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften des Landbaues e.V.”, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA), vol. 39.
    14. Martinovici, A., 2019. "Revealing attention - how eye movements predict brand choice and moment of choice," Other publications TiSEM 7dca38a5-9f78-4aee-bd81-c, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    15. James Agarwal & Wayne DeSarbo & Naresh K. Malhotra & Vithala Rao, 2015. "An Interdisciplinary Review of Research in Conjoint Analysis: Recent Developments and Directions for Future Research," Customer Needs and Solutions, Springer;Institute for Sustainable Innovation and Growth (iSIG), vol. 2(1), pages 19-40, March.
    16. Susan J. Méndez & Jongsay Yong & Hugh Gravelle & Anthony Scott, 2024. "Medical pricing decisions: Evidence from Australian specialists," Melbourne Institute Working Paper Series wp2024n11, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, The University of Melbourne.
    17. Mahesh Balan U & Saji K. Mathew, 2021. "Personalize, Summarize or Let them Read? A Study on Online Word of Mouth Strategies and Consumer Decision Process," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 23(3), pages 627-647, June.
    18. Shin, Jungwoo & Hwang, Won-Sik, 2017. "Consumer preference and willingness to pay for a renewable fuel standard (RFS) policy: Focusing on ex-ante market analysis and segmentation," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 32-40.
    19. Haaijer, Marinus E., 1996. "Predictions in conjoint choice experiments : the x-factor probit model," Research Report 96B22, University of Groningen, Research Institute SOM (Systems, Organisations and Management).
    20. Ha, Jinkyung, 2018. "Consumer valuation of Fintech: The case of Mobile Payment in Korea," 22nd ITS Biennial Conference, Seoul 2018. Beyond the boundaries: Challenges for business, policy and society 190341, International Telecommunications Society (ITS).

    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:1:y:2008:i:4:p:317-330. 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.