IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v35y2015i6p691-702.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Understanding Patients’ Preferences for Referrals to Specialists for an Asymptomatic Condition

Author

Listed:
  • Robert Dunlea
  • Leslie Lenert

Abstract

Background: A specialty referral is a common but complex decision that often requires a primary care provider to balance his or her own interests with those of the patient. Objective: To examine the factors that influence a patient’s choice of a specialist for consultation for an asymptomatic condition and better understand the tradeoffs that patients are and are not willing to make in this decision. Design: Stratified cross-sectional convenience sample of subjects selected to parallel US population demographics. Participants: Members of an Internet survey panel who reported seeing a physician in the past year whose responses met objective quality metrics for attention. Main measures: Respondents completed an adaptive conjoint analysis survey comparing specialists regarding eight attributes. The reliability of assessments and the predictive validity of models were measured using holdout samples. The relative importance (RI) of different attributes was computed using paired t tests. The implications of utility values were studied using market simulation methods. Key results: Five hundred and thirty subjects completed the survey and had responses that met quality criteria. The reliability of responses was high (86% agreement), and models were predictive of patients’ preferences (82.6% agreement with holdout choices). The most important attribute for patients was out-of-pocket cost (RI of 19.5%, P

Suggested Citation

  • Robert Dunlea & Leslie Lenert, 2015. "Understanding Patients’ Preferences for Referrals to Specialists for an Asymptomatic Condition," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 35(6), pages 691-702, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:35:y:2015:i:6:p:691-702
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X14566640
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X14566640
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X14566640?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. Olivier Toubia & Duncan I. Simester & John R. Hauser & Ely Dahan, 2003. "Fast Polyhedral Adaptive Conjoint Estimation," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(3), pages 273-303.
    2. 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.
    3. Peter J. Lenk & Wayne S. DeSarbo & Paul E. Green & Martin R. Young, 1996. "Hierarchical Bayes Conjoint Analysis: Recovery of Partworth Heterogeneity from Reduced Experimental Designs," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 15(2), pages 173-191.
    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. Hesham Ali Behary Aboelkhir & Adel Elomri & Tarek Y. ElMekkawy & Laoucine Kerbache & Mohamed S. Elakkad & Abdulla Al-Ansari & Omar M. Aboumarzouk & Abdelfatteh El Omri, 2022. "A Bibliometric Analysis and Visualization of Decision Support Systems for Healthcare Referral Strategies," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(24), pages 1-27, December.

    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. Theodoros Evgeniou & Constantinos Boussios & Giorgos Zacharia, 2005. "Generalized Robust Conjoint Estimation," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(3), pages 415-429, May.
    3. 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.
    4. Xinfang (Jocelyn) Wang & Jeffrey D. Camm & David J. Curry, 2009. "A Branch-and-Price Approach to the Share-of-Choice Product Line Design Problem," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 55(10), pages 1718-1728, October.
    5. Hauser, John R., 2014. "Consideration-set heuristics," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 67(8), pages 1688-1699.
    6. Olivier Toubia & Eric Johnson & Theodoros Evgeniou & Philippe Delquié, 2013. "Dynamic Experiments for Estimating Preferences: An Adaptive Method of Eliciting Time and Risk Parameters," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 59(3), pages 613-640, June.
    7. Jeffrey D. Camm & James J. Cochran & David J. Curry & Sriram Kannan, 2006. "Conjoint Optimization: An Exact Branch-and-Bound Algorithm for the Share-of-Choice Problem," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(3), pages 435-447, March.
    8. Theodoros Evgeniou & Massimiliano Pontil & Olivier Toubia, 2007. "A Convex Optimization Approach to Modeling Consumer Heterogeneity in Conjoint Estimation," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(6), pages 805-818, 11-12.
    9. Halme, Merja & Kallio, Markku, 2011. "Estimation methods for choice-based conjoint analysis of consumer preferences," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 214(1), pages 160-167, October.
    10. Schuldt, Johannes & Doktor, Anna & Lichters, Marcel & Vogt, Bodo & Robra, Bernt-Peter, 2017. "Insurees’ preferences in hospital choice—A population-based study," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 121(10), pages 1040-1046.
    11. Patricia M. Herman & Maia Ingram & Charles E. Cunningham & Heather Rimas & Lucy Murrieta & Kenneth Schachter & Jill Guernsey Zapien & Scott C. Carvajal, 2016. "A Comparison of Methods for Capturing Patient Preferences for Delivery of Mental Health Services to Low-Income Hispanics Engaged in Primary Care," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 9(4), pages 293-301, August.
    12. Min Ding & Young-Hoon Park & Eric T. Bradlow, 2009. "Barter Markets for Conjoint Analysis," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 55(6), pages 1003-1017, June.
    13. Yupeng Chen & Raghuram Iyengar & Garud Iyengar, 2017. "Modeling Multimodal Continuous Heterogeneity in Conjoint Analysis—A Sparse Learning Approach," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(1), pages 140-156, January.
    14. John R. Hauser & Olivier Toubia, 2005. "The Impact of Utility Balance and Endogeneity in Conjoint Analysis," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(3), pages 498-507, August.
    15. John C. Liechty & Duncan K. H. Fong & Wayne S. DeSarbo, 2005. "Dynamic Models Incorporating Individual Heterogeneity: Utility Evolution in Conjoint Analysis," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(2), pages 285-293, November.
    16. Michael Yee & Ely Dahan & John R. Hauser & James Orlin, 2007. "Greedoid-Based Noncompensatory Inference," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(4), pages 532-549, 07-08.
    17. Rod Mccoll & Yann Truong & Antonella La Rocca, 2019. "Service guarantees as a base for positioning in B2B," Post-Print hal-02326105, HAL.
    18. Robert Zeithammer & Peter Lenk, 2006. "Bayesian estimation of multivariate-normal models when dimensions are absent," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 4(3), pages 241-265, September.
    19. 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.
    20. Fay, Scott & Mitra, Deb & Wang, Qiong, 2009. "Ask or infer? Strategic implications of alternative learning approaches in customization," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 26(2), pages 136-152.

    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:sae:medema:v:35:y:2015:i:6:p:691-702. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.