Eliciting preferences of the community for out of hours care provided by general practitioners: a stated preference discrete choice experiment
Access to primary care services is a major issue as new models of delivering primary care continue develop in many countries. Major changes to out of hours care provided by general practitioners (GPs) were made in the UK in 1995. These were designed in response to low morale and job dissatisfaction of GPs, rather than in response to patients' preferences. The aim of this study is to elicit the preferences of patients and the community for different models of GP out of hours care. A questionnaire was sent to parents of children in Aberdeen and Glasgow in Scotland who had received a home visit or attended a primary care emergency centre, or were registered with a GP. The questionnaire used a discrete choice experiment that asked parents to imagine their child had respiratory symptoms. Parents were then asked to choose between a series of pairs of scenarios, with each scenario describing a different model of out of hours care. Each model varied by waiting time, who was seen, location, and whether the doctor listened. The response rate was 68% (3893/5718). The most important attribute was whether the doctor seemed to listen, suggesting that policies aimed at improving doctor-patient communication will lead to the largest improvements in utility. The most preferred location of care was a hospital accident and emergency department. This suggests that new models of primary care emergency centres may not reduce the demand for accident and emergency visits from this group of patients in urban areas. Preferences also differed across sub-groups of patients. Those who had never used out of hours care before had stronger preferences for waiting time and the doctor listening, suggesting higher expectations of non-users. Further research is required into the demand for out of hours care as new models of care become established.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Volume (Year): 56 (2003)
Issue (Month): 4 (February)
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description|
|Order Information:|| Postal: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/supportfaq.cws_home/regional|
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:56:y:2003:i:4:p:803-814. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu)
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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.