IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/pharmo/v3y2019i4d10.1007_s41669-019-0135-2.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Using a Discrete-Choice Experiment to Estimate the Preferences of Clinical Practitioners for a Novel Non-invasive Device for Diagnosis of Peripheral Arterial Disease in Primary Care

Author

Listed:
  • Yemi Oluboyede

    (Newcastle University)

  • Laura Ternent

    (Newcastle University)

  • Luke Vale

    (Newcastle University)

  • John Allen

    (Newcastle University)

Abstract

Background Peripheral arterial disease (PAD) is a common condition that causes significant morbidity and reduced life expectancy, and can have a serious economic impact. It is often underdiagnosed in primary care, partially due to the fact that the current National Institute for Health Care and Excellence-recommended ankle-brachial pressure index (ABPI) test for PAD in primary care is time-consuming and is technically challenging to perform. The availability of a simple, reliable diagnostic test has the potential to facilitate early PAD identification and treatment. Objective The aim of this study was to evaluate the preferences of primary care practitioners relating to the key characteristics for a new medical device for PAD detection. Participants A sample of 116 UK primary care setting clinicians involved in the diagnosis and/or management of PAD, comprising of doctors (n = 95), nurses (n = 17), health care assistants (n = 1) and other unspecified clinicians (n = 3). Outcomes Relative weights derived from a discrete choice experiment (DCE), by primary care practitioners regarding six key characteristics of the new device: device display, data integration, training, power supply, portability of the device, and cost. Results Five characteristics were important for preferences. Practitioners favoured manual, as opposed to automated, integration of test results into patient records. Practitioners strongly preferred disposable batteries as the power supply for the device compared with other alternatives. Conclusions This novel study has successfully utilised a DCE to elicit primary care practitioner’s preferences for the development of the new device. The preferences can help inform device design and therefore facilitate/help to maximise its uptake and buy-in from the outset.

Suggested Citation

  • Yemi Oluboyede & Laura Ternent & Luke Vale & John Allen, 2019. "Using a Discrete-Choice Experiment to Estimate the Preferences of Clinical Practitioners for a Novel Non-invasive Device for Diagnosis of Peripheral Arterial Disease in Primary Care," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 3(4), pages 571-581, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:pharmo:v:3:y:2019:i:4:d:10.1007_s41669-019-0135-2
    DOI: 10.1007/s41669-019-0135-2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s41669-019-0135-2
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s41669-019-0135-2?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Louviere,Jordan J. & Hensher,David A. & Swait,Joffre D., 2000. "Stated Choice Methods," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521788304, September.
    2. Fredrik Carlsson & Peter Martinsson, 2003. "Design techniques for stated preference methods in health economics," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(4), pages 281-294, April.
    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. Fredrik Carlsson & Mitesh Kataria & Elina Lampi, 2011. "Do EPA Administrators Recommend Environmental Policies That Citizens Want?," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 87(1), pages 60-74.
    2. Catalina M. Torres Figuerola & Nick Hanley & Sergio Colombo, 2011. "Incorrectly accounting for taste heterogeneity in choice experiments: Does it really matter for welfare measurement?," CRE Working Papers (Documents de treball del CRE) 2011/1, Centre de Recerca Econòmica (UIB ·"Sa Nostra").
    3. Torres, Cati & Hanley, Nick & Riera, Antoni, 2011. "How wrong can you be? Implications of incorrect utility function specification for welfare measurement in choice experiments," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 62(1), pages 111-121, July.
    4. Eggert, Håkan & Kataria, Mitesh & Lampi, Elina, 2018. "Difference in Preferences or Multiple Preference Orderings? Comparing Choices of Environmental Bureaucrats, Recreational Anglers, and the Public," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 131-141.
    5. Fredrik Carlsson & Jorge García & Åsa Löfgren, 2010. "Conformity and the Demand for Environmental Goods," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 47(3), pages 407-421, November.
    6. Alberto Zanni & Alastair Bailey & Sophia Davidova, 2008. "Analysis of the Vocational and Residential Preferences of a Rural Population: Application of an Experimental Technique to Rural Slovenia," Spatial Economic Analysis, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 3(1), pages 89-114.
    7. Fredrik Carlsson & Peter Martinsson, 2008. "How Much is Too Much?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 40(2), pages 165-176, June.
    8. Marit E. Kragt & J.W. Bennett, 2011. "Using choice experiments to value catchment and estuary health in Tasmania with individual preference heterogeneity," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 55(2), pages 159-179, April.
    9. Abou-Ali, Hala & Carlsson, Fredrik, 2004. "Evaluating the welfare effects of improved water quality using the choice experiment method," Working Papers in Economics 131, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics.
    10. Pfarr Christian & Ulrich Volker, 2011. "Discrete-Choice-Experimente zur Ermittlung der Präferenzen für Umverteilung," Review of Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 62(3), pages 232-262, December.
    11. Hensher, David A., 2006. "Towards a practical method to establish comparable values of travel time savings from stated choice experiments with differing design dimensions," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 40(10), pages 829-840, December.
    12. Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Rose, John M. & Hensher, David A., 2009. "Efficient stated choice experiments for estimating nested logit models," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 43(1), pages 19-35, January.
    13. Shah, Koonal K. & Tsuchiya, Aki & Wailoo, Allan J., 2015. "Valuing health at the end of life: A stated preference discrete choice experiment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 48-56.
    14. Junyi Shen & Tatsuyoshi Saijo, 2007. "Does energy efficiency label alter consumers f purchase decision? A latent class approach on Shanghai data," OSIPP Discussion Paper 07E005, Osaka School of International Public Policy, Osaka University.
    15. Elizabeth Kinter & Thomas Prior & Christopher Carswell & John Bridges, 2012. "A Comparison of Two Experimental Design Approaches in Applying Conjoint Analysis in Patient-Centered Outcomes Research," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 5(4), pages 279-294, December.
    16. Kragt, Marit Ellen & Bennett, Jeffrey W., 2009. "Using Choice Experiments to value River and Estuary Health in Tasmania with Individual Preference Heterogeneity," Research Reports 94816, Australian National University, Environmental Economics Research Hub.
    17. van Cranenburgh, Sander & Rose, John M. & Chorus, Caspar G., 2018. "On the robustness of efficient experimental designs towards the underlying decision rule," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 50-64.
    18. Junyi Shen & On Fukui & Hiroyuki Hashimoto & Takako Nakashima & Tadashi Kimura & Kenichiro Morishige & Tatsuyoshi Saijo, 2012. "A cost-benefit analysis on the specialization in departments of obstetrics and gynecology in Japan," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 2(1), pages 1-10, December.
    19. 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.
    20. Carlsson, Fredrik & Martinsson, Peter, 2006. "How much is too much? - An investigation of the effect of the number of choice sets, starting point and the choice of bid vectors in choice experiments," Working Papers in Economics 191, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics.

    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:pharmo:v:3:y:2019:i:4:d:10.1007_s41669-019-0135-2. 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.