IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/patien/v14y2021i5d10.1007_s40271-021-00512-4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Communicating Test Results from a General Health Check: Preferences from a Discrete Choice Experiment Survey

Author

Listed:
  • Åsa Grauman

    (Uppsala University)

  • Mats Hansson

    (Uppsala University)

  • Stefan James

    (Uppsala University)

  • Brett Hauber

    (Pfizer, Inc.
    University of Washington School or Pharmacy)

  • Jorien Veldwijk

    (Erasmus University
    Erasmus University)

Abstract

Background Health checks can detect risk factors and initiate prevention of cardiovascular diseases but there is no consensus on how to communicate the results. The aim of this study was to investigate the preferences of the general population for communicating health check results. Methods A randomly selected sample of the Swedish population aged 40–70 years completed a discrete choice experiment survey that included questions on sociodemographics, lifestyle and health and 15 choice questions consisting of six attributes (written results, notification method, consultation time, waiting time, lifestyle recommendation and cost). Data were analyzed with a latent class analysis (LCA). Relative importance of the attributes and predicted uptake for several scenarios were estimated. Results In the analysis, 432 individuals were included (response rate 29.6%). A three-class LCA model best fit the data. Cost was the most important attribute in all classes. Preferences heterogeneity was found for the other attributes; in Class 1, receiving consultation time and the written results were important, respondents in Class 2 dominated on costs and respondents in Class 3 found consultation time, waiting time and lifestyle recommendations to be important. Health literate respondents were more likely to belong to Class 3. The predicted uptake rates ranged from 7 to 88% for different health checks with large differences across the classes. Conclusion Cost was most important when deciding whether to participate in a health check. Although cost was the most important factor, it is not sufficient to offer health checks free-of-charge if other requirements regarding how the test results are communicated are not in place; participants need to be able to understand their results.

Suggested Citation

  • Åsa Grauman & Mats Hansson & Stefan James & Brett Hauber & Jorien Veldwijk, 2021. "Communicating Test Results from a General Health Check: Preferences from a Discrete Choice Experiment Survey," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 14(5), pages 649-660, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:patien:v:14:y:2021:i:5:d:10.1007_s40271-021-00512-4
    DOI: 10.1007/s40271-021-00512-4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40271-021-00512-4
    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/s40271-021-00512-4?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. Hensher,David A. & Rose,John M. & Greene,William H., 2015. "Applied Choice Analysis," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107465923, November.
    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. Canessa, Carolin & Venus, Terese E. & Wiesmeier, Miriam & Mennig, Philipp & Sauer, Johannes, 2023. "Incentives, Rewards or Both in Payments for Ecosystem Services: Drawing a Link Between Farmers' Preferences and Biodiversity Levels," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 213(C).
    2. Sant'Anna, Ana Claudia & Bergtold, Jason & Shanoyan, Aleksan & Caldas, Marcellus & Granco, Gabriel, 2021. "Deal or No Deal? Analysis of Bioenergy Feedstock Contract Choice with Multiple Opt-out Options and Contract Attribute Substitutability," 2021 Conference, August 17-31, 2021, Virtual 315289, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    3. Boyce, Christopher & Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Hanley, Nick, 2019. "Personality and economic choices," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 82-100.
    4. Giovanna Piracci & Emilia Lamonaca & Fabio Gaetano Santeramo & Fabio Boncinelli & Leonardo Casini, 2024. "On the willingness to pay for food sustainability labelling: A meta‐analysis," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 55(2), pages 329-345, March.
    5. Ratcliffe, Julie & Huynh, Elisabeth & Chen, Gang & Stevens, Katherine & Swait, Joffre & Brazier, John & Sawyer, Michael & Roberts, Rachel & Flynn, Terry, 2016. "Valuing the Child Health Utility 9D: Using profile case best worst scaling methods to develop a new adolescent specific scoring algorithm," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 48-59.
    6. Qian, Lixian & Grisolía, Jose M. & Soopramanien, Didier, 2019. "The impact of service and government-policy attributes on consumer preferences for electric vehicles in China," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 70-84.
    7. Roy Brouwer & Solomon Tarfasa, 2020. "Testing hypothetical bias in a framed field experiment," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 68(3), pages 343-357, September.
    8. Feucht, Yvonne & Zander, Katrin, 2017. "Consumers' Willingness to Pay for Climate-Friendly Food in European Countries," 2018 International European Forum (163rd EAAE Seminar), February 5-9, 2018, Innsbruck-Igls, Austria 276930, International European Forum on System Dynamics and Innovation in Food Networks.
    9. Esther W. Bekker-Grob & Bas Donkers & Jorien Veldwijk & Marcel F. Jonker & Sylvia Buis & Jan Huisman & Patrick Bindels, 2021. "What Factors Influence Non-Participation Most in Colorectal Cancer Screening? A Discrete Choice Experiment," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 14(2), pages 269-281, March.
    10. Jaewoong Yun, 2023. "Strategies for Improving the Sustainability of Fare-Free Policy for the Elderly through Preferences by Travel Modes," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(20), pages 1-14, October.
    11. de Jong, Gerard & Kouwenhoven, Marco & Ruijs, Kim & van Houwe, Pieter & Borremans, Dana, 2016. "A time-period choice model for road freight transport in Flanders based on stated preference data," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 20-31.
    12. Tamaki Kitagawa & Kenichi Kashiwagi & Hiroko Isoda, 2020. "Effect of Religious and Cultural Information of Olive Oil on Consumer Behavior: Evidence from Japan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-17, January.
    13. Bernadeta Gołębiowska & Anna Bartczak & Mikołaj Czajkowski, 2020. "Energy Demand Management and Social Norms," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(15), pages 1-20, July.
    14. Minhaj Mahmud & Italo A Gutierrez & Krishna B Kumar & Shanthi Nataraj, 2021. "What Aspects of Formality Do Workers Value? Evidence from a Choice Experiment in Bangladesh," The World Bank Economic Review, World Bank, vol. 35(2), pages 303-327.
    15. Nicolas Jacquemet & Stephane Luchini & Jason Shogren & Verity Watson, 2019. "Discrete Choice under Oaths," Post-Print halshs-02136103, HAL.
    16. Ju-Hee Kim & Younggew Kim & Seung-Hoon Yoo, 2021. "Using a choice experiment to explore the public willingness to pay for the impacts of improving energy efficiency of an apartment," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 55(5), pages 1775-1793, October.
    17. Gustavo García-Melero & Rubén Sainz-González & Pablo Coto-Millán & Alejandra Valencia-Vásquez, 2021. "Sustainable Mobility Policy Analysis Using Hybrid Choice Models: Is It the Right Choice?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-16, March.
    18. John Buckell & Vrinda Vasavada & Sarah Wordsworth & Dean A. Regier & Matthew Quaife, 2022. "Utility maximization versus regret minimization in health choice behavior: Evidence from four datasets," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(2), pages 363-381, February.
    19. Hensher, David A. & Teye, Collins, 2019. "Commodity interaction in freight movement models for New South Wales," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 80(C).
    20. Lauterbach, Josephine & Risius, Antje & Bantle, Christina, 2020. "Communicating the Benefits of Agrobiodiversity Enhancing Products - Insights from a Discrete Choice Experiment," 60th Annual Conference, Halle/ Saale, Germany, September 23-25, 2020 305625, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA).

    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:14:y:2021:i:5:d:10.1007_s40271-021-00512-4. 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.