IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/chieco/v63y2020ics1043951x20301358.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Tertiary hospitals or community clinics? An enquiry into the factors affecting patients' choice for healthcare facilities in urban China

Author

Listed:
  • Jiang, Shan
  • Gu, Yuanyuan
  • Yang, Fan
  • Wu, Tao
  • Wang, Hui
  • Cutler, Henry
  • Zhang, Lufa

Abstract

Most Chinese patients tend to seek primary care services in tertiary hospitals rather than community clinics, which has caused the malfunction of China's multi-tiered health system. This study aimed to identify the factors that affected patients' decisions when selecting healthcare facilities and use these to design policies to redirect patient flow from tertiary hospitals back to community clinics. A cross-sectional survey was conducted in Shanghai in 2017 using the best-worst scaling experiment. A total of 202 respondents were included in the analysis, including 97 community residents, 56 tertiary hospital patients, and 49 community clinic patients. The latter two had made their choices so the three samples were analyzed separately. Seven attributes were used in the experiment with each varying across two or three levels to accommodate the features of primary care services in Shanghai. The values of attribute levels were estimated using the mixed logit model. Relative importance across attributes and attribute levels were derived and policy simulations were undertaken to examine the impact of changing attribute levels on choices. Results suggest that the three samples are composed of different types of people who presented different preference patterns. The community residents are representative of the population and to them sufficient test and examinations, doctors with expertise, and good service attitude are the most desirable features for a healthcare facility while unfriendly practitioners and lengthy visit the least attractive features. In terms of attributes, friendliness of doctors and the availability of tests and examinations are the two major drivers in selecting healthcare facilities. Our findings provide supportive evidence and useful inputs to the ongoing healthcare reform in China.

Suggested Citation

  • Jiang, Shan & Gu, Yuanyuan & Yang, Fan & Wu, Tao & Wang, Hui & Cutler, Henry & Zhang, Lufa, 2020. "Tertiary hospitals or community clinics? An enquiry into the factors affecting patients' choice for healthcare facilities in urban China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 63(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:chieco:v:63:y:2020:i:c:s1043951x20301358
    DOI: 10.1016/j.chieco.2020.101538
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1043951X20301358
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.chieco.2020.101538?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. Flynn, Terry N. & Louviere, Jordan J. & Peters, Tim J. & Coast, Joanna, 2007. "Best-worst scaling: What it can do for health care research and how to do it," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 171-189, January.
    2. Wang, Hufeng & Gusmano, Michael K. & Cao, Qi, 2011. "An evaluation of the policy on community health organizations in China: Will the priority of new healthcare reform in China be a success?," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(1), pages 37-43, January.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. Daniel McFadden & Kenneth Train, 2000. "Mixed MNL models for discrete response," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(5), pages 447-470.
    6. David Hensher & William Greene, 2003. "The Mixed Logit model: The state of practice," Transportation, Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 133-176, May.
    7. Julie Ratcliffe & Leah Couzner & Terry Flynn & Michael Sawyer & Katherine Stevens & John Brazier & Leonie Burgess, 2011. "Valuing child health utility 9D health states with a young adolescent sample," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 9(1), pages 15-27, January.
    8. Yang, Yansui & Yang, Dan, 2009. "Community health service centers in China, not always trusted by the populations they serve?," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 20(4), pages 620-624, December.
    9. Arne Risa Hole, 2007. "Fitting mixed logit models by using maximum simulated likelihood," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 7(3), pages 388-401, September.
    10. Yun Liu & Qingxia Kong & Shasha Yuan & Joris van de Klundert, 2018. "Factors influencing choice of health system access level in China: A systematic review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(8), pages 1-21, August.
    11. Office of Health Economics, 2007. "The Economics of Health Care," For School 001490, Office of Health Economics.
    12. Bhat, Chandra R., 2003. "Simulation estimation of mixed discrete choice models using randomized and scrambled Halton sequences," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 37(9), pages 837-855, November.
    13. 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.
    14. Liu, Yun & Kong, Qingxia & de Bekker-Grob, Esther W., 2019. "Public preferences for health care facilities in rural China: A discrete choice experiment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 237(C), pages 1-1.
    15. Coast, Joanna & Flynn, Terry N. & Natarajan, Lucy & Sproston, Kerry & Lewis, Jane & Louviere, Jordan J. & Peters, Tim J., 2008. "Valuing the ICECAP capability index for older people," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 67(5), pages 874-882, September.
    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. Li, Bo & Chen, Juan & Howard, Natasha, 2023. "Community nursing delivery in urban China: A social power perspective," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 326(C).
    2. Yu Wang & Peicong Zhai & Yue Zhang & Shan Jiang & Gang Chen & Shunping Li, 2023. "Gauging Incentive Values and Expectations (G.I.V.E.) among Blood Donors for Nonmonetary Incentives: Developing a Preference Elicitation Instrument through Qualitative Approaches in Shandong, China," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 16(6), pages 593-606, November.
    3. Meng Tian & Lei Yuan & Renzhong Guo & Yongsheng Wu & Xiaojian Liu, 2022. "Evaluations of Spatial Accessibility and Equity of Multi-Tiered Medical System: A Case Study of Shenzhen, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(5), pages 1-18, March.
    4. Fangye Du & Jiaoe Wang & Haitao Jin, 2021. "Whether Public Hospital Reform Affects the Hospital Choices of Patients in Urban Areas: New Evidence from Smart Card Data," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(15), pages 1-14, July.
    5. Fang Wu & Wei Chen & Lingling Lin & Xu Ren & Yingna Qu, 2022. "The Balanced Allocation of Medical and Health Resources in Urban Areas of China from the Perspective of Sustainable Development: A Case Study of Nanjing," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(11), pages 1-28, May.
    6. Chen, Qiulin & Xu, Duo & Fu, Hongqiao & Yip, Winnie, 2022. "Distance effects and home bias in patient choice on the Internet: Evidence from an online healthcare platform in China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 72(C).

    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. Lancsar, Emily & Louviere, Jordan & Donaldson, Cam & Currie, Gillian & Burgess, Leonie, 2013. "Best worst discrete choice experiments in health: Methods and an application," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 74-82.
    2. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Hensher, David A., 2021. "The landscape of econometric discrete choice modelling research," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    3. Nicolas Krucien & Verity Watson & Mandy Ryan, 2017. "Is Best–Worst Scaling Suitable for Health State Valuation? A Comparison with Discrete Choice Experiments," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(12), pages 1-16, December.
    4. 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.
    5. Jennifer A Whitty & Ruth Walker & Xanthe Golenko & Julie Ratcliffe, 2014. "A Think Aloud Study Comparing the Validity and Acceptability of Discrete Choice and Best Worst Scaling Methods," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(4), pages 1-9, April.
    6. V. Meusel & E. Mentzakis & P. Baji & G. Fiorentini & F. Paolucci, 2023. "Priority setting in the German healthcare system: results from a discrete choice experiment," International Journal of Health Economics and Management, Springer, vol. 23(3), pages 411-431, September.
    7. Terry N. Flynn & Elisabeth Huynh & Tim J. Peters & Hareth Al‐Janabi & Sam Clemens & Alison Moody & Joanna Coast, 2015. "Scoring the Icecap‐a Capability Instrument. Estimation of a UK General Population Tariff," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 24(3), pages 258-269, March.
    8. 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.
    9. Denise Doiron & Hong Il Yoo, 2020. "Stated preferences over job characteristics: A panel study," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 53(1), pages 43-82, February.
    10. Kaambwa, Billingsley & Lancsar, Emily & McCaffrey, Nicola & Chen, Gang & Gill, Liz & Cameron, Ian D. & Crotty, Maria & Ratcliffe, Julie, 2015. "Investigating consumers' and informal carers' views and preferences for consumer directed care: A discrete choice experiment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 81-94.
    11. Mishra, Bijesh, 2022. "Economics and human dimension of active management of forest-grassland ecotone in South-central USA under changing climate," MPRA Paper 116200, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 30 Jul 2022.
    12. Marco A. Palma & Dmitry V. Vedenov & David Bessler, 2020. "The order of variables, simulation noise, and accuracy of mixed logit estimates," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 58(5), pages 2049-2083, May.
    13. Arne Risa Hole & Hong Il Yoo, 2017. "The use of heuristic optimization algorithms to facilitate maximum simulated likelihood estimation of random parameter logit models," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 66(5), pages 997-1013, November.
    14. Damian Clarke & Sonia Oreffice & Climent Quintana‐Domeque, 2021. "On the Value of Birth Weight," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 83(5), pages 1130-1159, October.
    15. Yoo, Hong Il & Doiron, Denise, 2013. "The use of alternative preference elicitation methods in complex discrete choice experiments," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(6), pages 1166-1179.
    16. Huynh, Elisabeth & Coast, Joanna & Rose, John & Kinghorn, Philip & Flynn, Terry, 2017. "Values for the ICECAP-Supportive Care Measure (ICECAP-SCM) for use in economic evaluation at end of life," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 189(C), pages 114-128.
    17. Ryan, Mandy & Kinghorn, Philip & Entwistle, Vikki A. & Francis, Jill J., 2014. "Valuing patients' experiences of healthcare processes: Towards broader applications of existing methods," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 194-203.
    18. Chen, Gang & Ratcliffe, Julie & Milte, Rachel & Khadka, Jyoti & Kaambwa, Billingsley, 2021. "Quality of care experience in aged care: An Australia-Wide discrete choice experiment to elicit preference weights," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 289(C).
    19. Flynn, Terry Nicholas & Louviere, Jordan J. & Peters, Tim J. & Coast, Joanna, 2010. "Using discrete choice experiments to understand preferences for quality of life. Variance-scale heterogeneity matters," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 70(12), pages 1957-1965, June.
    20. 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.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Best-worst scaling; China healthcare reform; Community clinics; Patient choice; Primary care; Tertiary hospital;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C35 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Multiple or Simultaneous Equation Models; Multiple Variables - - - Discrete Regression and Qualitative Choice Models; Discrete Regressors; Proportions
    • I18 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Government Policy; Regulation; Public Health
    • P35 - Political Economy and Comparative Economic Systems - - Socialist Institutions and Their Transitions - - - Public Finance

    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:eee:chieco:v:63:y:2020:i:c:s1043951x20301358. 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/locate/chieco .

    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.