IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v301y2022ics0277953622001915.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Valuing quality in mental healthcare: A discrete choice experiment eliciting preferences from mental healthcare service users, mental healthcare professionals and the general population

Author

Listed:
  • Rowen, Donna
  • Powell, Philip A.
  • Hole, Arne Risa
  • Aragon, Maria-Jose
  • Castelli, Adriana
  • Jacobs, Rowena

Abstract

High and sustained healthcare quality is important worldwide, though health policy may prioritise the achievement of certain aspects of quality over others. This study determines the relative importance of different aspects of mental healthcare quality to different stakeholders by eliciting preferences in a UK sample using a discrete choice experiment (DCE). DCE attributes were generated using triangulation between policy documents and mental healthcare service user and mental healthcare professional views, whilst ensuring attributes were measurable using available data. Ten attributes were selected: waiting times; ease of access; person-centred care; co-ordinated approach; continuity; communication, capacity and resources; treated with dignity and respect; recovery focus; inappropriate discharge; quality of life (QoL). The DCE was conducted online (December 2018 to February 2019) with mental healthcare service users (n = 331), mental healthcare professionals (n = 510), and members of the general population (n = 1018). Respondents’ choices were analysed using conditional logistic regression. Relative preferences for each attribute were generated using the marginal rate of substitution (MRS) with QoL as numeraire. Across all stakeholders, being treated with dignity and respect was of high importance. A coordinated approach was important across all stakeholders, whereas communication had higher relative importance for healthcare professionals and service users and ease of access had higher relative importance for the general population. This implies that policy could be affected by the choice of whose preferences (service users, healthcare professionals or general population) to use, since this impacts on the relative value and implied ranking of different aspects of mental healthcare quality.

Suggested Citation

  • Rowen, Donna & Powell, Philip A. & Hole, Arne Risa & Aragon, Maria-Jose & Castelli, Adriana & Jacobs, Rowena, 2022. "Valuing quality in mental healthcare: A discrete choice experiment eliciting preferences from mental healthcare service users, mental healthcare professionals and the general population," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 301(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:301:y:2022:i:c:s0277953622001915
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2022.114885
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953622001915
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socscimed.2022.114885?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. Emily Lancsar & Jordan Louviere, 2008. "Conducting Discrete Choice Experiments to Inform Healthcare Decision Making," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 26(8), pages 661-677, August.
    2. Esther Bekker-Grob & Bas Donkers & Marcel Jonker & Elly Stolk, 2015. "Sample Size Requirements for Discrete-Choice Experiments in Healthcare: a Practical Guide," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 8(5), pages 373-384, October.
    3. Vikas Soekhai & Esther W. Bekker-Grob & Alan R. Ellis & Caroline M. Vass, 2019. "Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: Past, Present and Future," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 37(2), pages 201-226, February.
    4. Alison Pearce & Mark Harrison & Verity Watson & Deborah J. Street & Kirsten Howard & Nick Bansback & Stirling Bryan, 2021. "Respondent Understanding in Discrete Choice Experiments: A Scoping Review," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 14(1), pages 17-53, January.
    5. Caroline M. Vass & Stuart Wright & Michael Burton & Katherine Payne, 2018. "Scale Heterogeneity in Healthcare Discrete Choice Experiments: A Primer," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 11(2), pages 167-173, April.
    6. Fredrik Carlsson & Peter Martinsson, 2003. "Design techniques for stated preference methods in health economics," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(4), pages 281-294, 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. Nicolet, Anna & Perraudin, Clémence & Krucien, Nicolas & Wagner, Joël & Peytremann-Bridevaux, Isabelle & Marti, Joachim, 2023. "Preferences of older adults for healthcare models designed to improve care coordination: Evidence from Western Switzerland," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 132(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. Pestana, Joana & Frutuoso, João & Costa, Eduardo & Fonseca, Filipa, 2024. "Heterogeneity in physician's job preferences in a dual practice context – Evidence from a DCE," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 343(C).
    2. Swait, J. & de Bekker-Grob, E.W., 2022. "A discrete choice model implementing gist-based categorization of alternatives, with applications to patient preferences for cancer screening and treatment," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 85(C).
    3. Joachim Marti & John Buckell & Johanna Catherine Maclean & Jody L. Sindelar, 2016. "To ‘Vape’ or Smoke? A Discrete Choice Experiment Among U.S. Adult Smokers," NBER Working Papers 22079, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    4. Joachim Marti & John Buckell & Johanna Catherine Maclean & Jody Sindelar, 2019. "To “Vape” Or Smoke? Experimental Evidence On Adult Smokers," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 57(1), pages 705-725, January.
    5. de Bekker-Grob, E.W. & Donkers, B. & Bliemer, M.C.J. & Veldwijk, J. & Swait, J.D., 2020. "Can healthcare choice be predicted using stated preference data?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 246(C).
    6. Buckell, John & Hess, Stephane, 2019. "Stubbing out hypothetical bias: improving tobacco market predictions by combining stated and revealed preference data," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 93-102.
    7. Nikita Arora & Matthew Quaife & Kara Hanson & Mylene Lagarde & Dorka Woldesenbet & Abiy Seifu & Romain Crastes dit Sourd, 2022. "Discrete choice analysis of health worker job preferences in Ethiopia: Separating attribute non‐attendance from taste heterogeneity," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(5), pages 806-819, May.
    8. 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.
    9. Brouwers, Jonas & Cox, Bianca & Van Wilder, Astrid & Claessens, Fien & Bruyneel, Luk & De Ridder, Dirk & Eeckloo, Kristof & Vanhaecht, Kris, 2021. "The future of hospital quality of care policy: A multi-stakeholder discrete choice experiment in Flanders, Belgium," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 125(12), pages 1565-1573.
    10. Dimitrios Gouglas & Kendall Hoyt & Elizabeth Peacocke & Aristidis Kaloudis & Trygve Ottersen & John-Arne Røttingen, 2019. "Setting Strategic Objectives for the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations: An Exploratory Decision Analysis Process," Service Science, INFORMS, vol. 49(6), pages 430-446, November.
    11. Huls, Samare P.I. & de Bekker-Grob, Esther W., 2022. "Can healthcare choice be predicted using stated preference data? The role of model complexity in a discrete choice experiment about colorectal cancer screening," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 315(C).
    12. Plaxcedes Chiwire & Charlotte Beaudart & Silvia M. Evers & Hassan Mahomed & Mickaël Hiligsmann, 2022. "Enhancing Public Participation in Public Health Offerings: Patient Preferences for Facilities in the Western Cape Province Using a Discrete Choice Experiment," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(1), pages 1-26, January.
    13. Shimelis Araya Geda & Rainer Kühl, 2021. "Exploring Smallholder Farmers’ Preferences for Climate-Smart Seed Innovations: Empirical Evidence from Southern Ethiopia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-17, March.
    14. Sydenham, Rikke Vognbjerg & Jarbøl, Dorte Ejg & Hansen, Malene Plejdrup & Justesen, Ulrik Stenz & Watson, Verity & Pedersen, Line Bjørnskov, 2022. "Prescribing antibiotics: Factors driving decision-making in general practice. A discrete choice experiment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 305(C).
    15. Shah, Koonal K. & Tsuchiya, Aki & Wailoo, Allan J., 2015. "Valuing health at the end of life: A stated preference discrete choice experiment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 48-56.
    16. Vo, Linh K. & Allen, Michelle J. & Cunich, Michelle & Thillainadesan, Janani & McPhail, Steven M. & Sharma, Pakhi & Wallis, Shannon & McGowan, Kelly & Carter, Hannah E., 2024. "Stakeholders’ preferences for the design and delivery of virtual care services: A systematic review of discrete choice experiments," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 340(C).
    17. Koşar, Gizem & Ransom, Tyler & van der Klaauw, Wilbert, 2022. "Understanding migration aversion using elicited counterfactual choice probabilities," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 231(1), pages 123-147.
    18. Osman, Ahmed M.Y. & Wu, Jing & He, Xiaoning & Chen, Gang, 2021. "Eliciting SF-6Dv2 health state utilities using an anchored best-worst scaling technique," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 279(C).
    19. Lentini, Valeria & Gimenez, Gregorio & Valbuena, Javier, 2024. "Teachers' preferences for incentives to work in disadvantaged districts: A discrete choice experiment in Costa Rica," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 831-845.
    20. Chandoevwit, Worawan & Wasi, Nada, 2020. "Incorporating discrete choice experiments into policy decisions: Case of designing public long-term care insurance," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 258(C).

    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:301:y:2022:i:c:s0277953622001915. 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.