IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v64y2007i9p1863-1875.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Prioritising patients on surgical waiting lists: A conjoint analysis study on the priority judgements of patients, surgeons, occupational physicians, and general practitioners

Author

Listed:
  • Oudhoff, Jurriaan P.
  • Timmermans, D.R.M.
  • Knol, D.L.
  • Bijnen, A.B.
  • Van der Wal, G.

Abstract

The prioritisation of patients on waiting lists is ascribed high potential for diminishing the consequences of waiting times for elective surgery. However, consistent evidence is lacking about which factors determine patient priority and it is unclear whether different stakeholders have different opinions on this issue. This study, conducted in the Netherlands, investigates the judgements of patients, laypersons (i.e. patients on other waiting lists), and physicians on the priority of patients on waiting lists. Participants were former patients with varicose veins (N=82), inguinal hernia (N=86), and gallstones (N=89), 101 surgeons, 95 occupational physicians, and 65 general practitioners. Each participant judged the priority of paper vignettes of patients with varicose veins, inguinal hernia, and gallstones. The vignettes were designed according to conjoint analysis methodology and described the physical symptoms, the psychological distress, the social limitations, and impairments in work of patients. Multilevel regression analysis of the responses showed that all groups made significant distinctions in patient priority depending on the severity of each characteristic in the vignettes. The physical symptoms and impairments in work had on average the highest impact on priority, but the summed impact of non-physical factors exceeded that of the physical symptoms. The different groups of participants appraised only the importance of the physical symptoms differently, but opinions on priority varied widely within each group. Whereas the high level of agreement between the different groups would facilitate the acceptance and the implementation of explicit prioritisation of patients on the waiting list, the high inter-individual variation signifies that consensus criteria for prioritisation are needed to warrant equity and transparency in care provision.

Suggested Citation

  • Oudhoff, Jurriaan P. & Timmermans, D.R.M. & Knol, D.L. & Bijnen, A.B. & Van der Wal, G., 2007. "Prioritising patients on surgical waiting lists: A conjoint analysis study on the priority judgements of patients, surgeons, occupational physicians, and general practitioners," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 64(9), pages 1863-1875, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:64:y:2007:i:9:p:1863-1875
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277-9536(07)00011-1
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    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. Naylor, C.D. & Basinski, A. & Baigrie, R.S. & Goldman, B.S. & Lomas, J., 1990. "Placing patients in the queue for coronary revascularization: Evidence for practice variations from an expert panel process," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 80(10), pages 1246-1252.
    2. Brouwer, Werner B. F. & Hermans, Herbert E. G. M., 1999. "Private clinics for employees as a Dutch solution for waiting lists: economic and legal arguments," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 1-17, April.
    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. 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.
    2. Kathryn Jack & Catrin Evans & Louise Bramley & Joanne Cooper & Tracy Keane & Marie Cope & Elizabeth Hendron, 2022. "Identifying and Understanding the Non-Clinical Impacts of Delayed or Cancelled Surgery in Order to Inform Prioritisation Processes: A Scoping Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(9), pages 1-11, May.
    3. Guillermo Durán & Pablo A. Rey & Patricio Wolff, 2017. "Solving the operating room scheduling problem with prioritized lists of patients," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 258(2), pages 395-414, November.
    4. Fabián Silva-Aravena & Eduardo Álvarez-Miranda & César A. Astudillo & Luis González-Martínez & José G. Ledezma, 2021. "Patients’ Prioritization on Surgical Waiting Lists: A Decision Support System," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(10), pages 1-27, May.

    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. Propper, Carol & Croxson, Bronwyn & Shearer, Arran, 2002. "Waiting times for hospital admissions: the impact of GP fundholding," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 227-252, March.
    2. Wang, Qinan, 2004. "Modeling and analysis of high risk patient queues," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 155(2), pages 502-515, June.
    3. N. Exel & Marion Ruiter & Werner Brouwer, 2008. "When Time is Not on Your Side," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 1(1), pages 55-71, January.
    4. Götze, Ralf, 2010. "The changing role of the state in the Dutch healthcare system," TranState Working Papers 141, University of Bremen, Collaborative Research Center 597: Transformations of the State.
    5. Kimberly Pugel & Amy Javernick-Will & Matthew Koschmann & Shawn Peabody & Karl Linden, 2020. "Adapting Collaborative Approaches for Service Provision to Low-Income Countries: Expert Panel Results," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-26, March.
    6. Benning, Tim M. & Dellaert, Benedict G.C., 2013. "Paying more for faster care? Individuals' attitude toward price-based priority access in health care," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 119-128.
    7. van der Grinten, Tom E. D. & Kasdorp, Jan P., 1999. "Choices in Dutch health care: mixing strategies and responsibilities," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(1-2), pages 105-122, December.
    8. Brouwer, Werner & van Exel, Job & Hermans, Bert & Stoop, Arjen, 2003. "Should I stay or should I go? Waiting lists and cross-border care in the Netherlands," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 63(3), pages 289-298, March.
    9. Greß, Stefan & Okma, Kieke G. H. & Wasem, Jürgen, 2002. "Private health insurance in social health insurance countries: Market outcomes and policy implications," Wirtschaftswissenschaftliche Diskussionspapiere 01/2002, University of Greifswald, Faculty of Law and Economics.
    10. Walton, Nancy A. & Martin, Douglas K. & Peter, Elizabeth H. & Pringle, Dorothy M. & Singer, Peter A., 2007. "Priority setting and cardiac surgery: A qualitative case study," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 80(3), pages 444-458, March.

    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:eee:socmed:v:64:y:2007:i:9:p:1863-1875. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    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.