IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/aphecp/v20y2022i4d10.1007_s40258-022-00716-1.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Preferred Attributes of Care Pathways for Obstructive Sleep Apnoea from the Perspective of Diagnosed Patients and High-Risk Individuals: A Discrete Choice Experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Andrea N. Natsky

    (Flinders University
    Flinders University)

  • Andrew Vakulin

    (Flinders University
    Flinders University
    Woolcock Institute of Medical Research, University of Sydney)

  • Ching Li Chai-Coetzer

    (Flinders University
    Flinders University
    Southern Adelaide Local Health Network, SA Health)

  • R. Doug McEvoy

    (Flinders University
    Flinders University
    Southern Adelaide Local Health Network, SA Health)

  • Robert J. Adams

    (Flinders University
    Flinders University
    Southern Adelaide Local Health Network, SA Health)

  • Billingsley Kaambwa

    (Flinders University
    Flinders University)

Abstract

Background The current healthcare system is challenged with a large and rising demand for obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) services. A paradigm shift in OSA management is required to incorporate the preferences of diagnosed patients and individuals at high risk of OSA. Objectives This study aimed to provide empirical evidence of the values and preferences of individuals diagnosed with OSA and high-risk populations regarding distinct OSA care pathway features. Methods A discrete choice experiment was undertaken in two groups: those with a formal diagnosis of OSA (n = 421) and those undiagnosed but at high risk of having OSA (n = 1033). Participants were recruited from a large cross-sectional survey in Australia. The discrete choice experiment approach used mixed-logit regression models to determine preferences relating to eight salient features of the OSA management pathway, i.e. initial assessment provider, sleep study setting, diagnosis costs, waiting times, results interpretation, treatment options, provider of ongoing care and frequency of follow-up visits. Results The findings indicate that all eight attributes investigated were statistically significant factors for respondents. Generally, both groups preferred low diagnostic costs, fewer follow-up visits, minimum waiting time for sleep study results and sleep specialists to recommend treatment. Management of OSA in primary care was acceptable to both groups and was the most preferred option by the high-risk group for the initial assessment, sleep study testing and ongoing care provision. Conclusions The discrete choice experiment results offer a promising approach for systematic incorporation of patient and high-risk group preferences into the future design and delivery of care pathways for OSA management.

Suggested Citation

  • Andrea N. Natsky & Andrew Vakulin & Ching Li Chai-Coetzer & R. Doug McEvoy & Robert J. Adams & Billingsley Kaambwa, 2022. "Preferred Attributes of Care Pathways for Obstructive Sleep Apnoea from the Perspective of Diagnosed Patients and High-Risk Individuals: A Discrete Choice Experiment," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 20(4), pages 597-607, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:aphecp:v:20:y:2022:i:4:d:10.1007_s40258-022-00716-1
    DOI: 10.1007/s40258-022-00716-1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40258-022-00716-1
    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/s40258-022-00716-1?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. Louviere,Jordan J. & Hensher,David A. & Swait,Joffre D. With contributions by-Name:Adamowicz,Wiktor, 2000. "Stated Choice Methods," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521788304.
    2. Fernando San Miguel & Mandy Ryan & Mabelle Amaya‐Amaya, 2005. "‘Irrational’ stated preferences: a quantitative and qualitative investigation," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(3), pages 307-322, March.
    3. Lancsar, Emily & Louviere, Jordan & Flynn, Terry, 2007. "Several methods to investigate relative attribute impact in stated preference experiments," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 64(8), pages 1738-1753, 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. Esther W. de Bekker‐Grob & Mandy Ryan & Karen Gerard, 2012. "Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(2), pages 145-172, February.
    2. Emily Lancsar & Peter Burge, 2014. "Choice modelling research in health economics," Chapters, in: Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly (ed.), Handbook of Choice Modelling, chapter 28, pages 675-687, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    3. Ting Li & Robert J. Kauffman & Eric van Heck & Peter Vervest & Benedict G. C. Dellaert, 2014. "Consumer Informedness and Firm Information Strategy," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 25(2), pages 345-363, June.
    4. 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.
    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. Axel Mühlbacher & Uwe Junker & Christin Juhnke & Edgar Stemmler & Thomas Kohlmann & Friedhelm Leverkus & Matthias Nübling, 2015. "Chronic pain patients’ treatment preferences: a discrete-choice experiment," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 16(6), pages 613-628, July.
    7. Emily Lancsar & Jordan Louviere, 2006. "Deleting ‘irrational’ responses from discrete choice experiments: a case of investigating or imposing preferences?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(8), pages 797-811, August.
    8. Mehdi Ammi & Christine Peyron, 2016. "Heterogeneity in general practitioners’ preferences for quality improvement programs: a choice experiment and policy simulation in France," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 6(1), pages 1-11, December.
    9. Axel Mühlbacher & Matthias Stoll & Jörg Mahlich & Matthias Nübling, 2013. "Evaluating the concordance of physician judgments and patient preferences on AIDS/HIV therapy - a Discrete Choice Experiment," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 3(1), pages 1-11, December.
    10. Emily Lancsar & Denzil G. Fiebig & Arne Risa Hole, 2017. "Discrete Choice Experiments: A Guide to Model Specification, Estimation and Software," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 35(7), pages 697-716, July.
    11. 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.
    12. repec:cup:judgdm:v:8:y:2013:i:6:p:700-716 is not listed on IDEAS
    13. Mandy Ryan & Karen Gerard & Gillian Currie, 2012. "Using Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics," Chapters, in: Andrew M. Jones (ed.), The Elgar Companion to Health Economics, Second Edition, chapter 41, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    14. Riera, Pere & Giergiczny, Marek & Peñuelas, Josep & Mahieu, Pierre-Alexandre, 2012. "A choice modelling case study on climate change involving two-way interactions," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(4), pages 345-354.
    15. Joseph F. Hair & Christian M. Ringle & Siegfried P. Gudergan & Andreas Fischer & Christian Nitzl & Con Menictas, 2019. "Partial least squares structural equation modeling-based discrete choice modeling: an illustration in modeling retailer choice," Business Research, Springer;German Academic Association for Business Research, vol. 12(1), pages 115-142, April.
    16. Emily Lancsar & Joffre Swait, 2014. "Reconceptualising the External Validity of Discrete Choice Experiments," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 32(10), pages 951-965, October.
    17. Michela Tinelli & Mandy Ryan & Christine Bond, 2016. "What, who and when? Incorporating a discrete choice experiment into an economic evaluation," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 6(1), pages 1-9, December.
    18. F. Johnson & Carol Mansfield, 2008. "Survey-Design and Analytical Strategies for Better Healthcare Stated-Choice Studies," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 1(4), pages 299-307, October.
    19. Sever, Ivan & Verbič, Miroslav & Klarić Sever, Eva, 2019. "Cost attribute in health care DCEs: Just adding another attribute or a trigger of change in the stated preferences?," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 32(C), pages 1-1.
    20. Karolin Becker & Peter Zweifel, 2005. "Cost Sharing in Health Insurance: An Instrument for Risk Selection?," SOI - Working Papers 0513, Socioeconomic Institute - University of Zurich.
    21. Emily Lancsar & Jordan Louviere, 2008. "Conducting Discrete Choice Experiments to Inform Healthcare Decision Making," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 26(8), pages 661-677, August.

    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:aphecp:v:20:y:2022:i:4:d:10.1007_s40258-022-00716-1. 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.