IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v17y2020i22p8420-d444807.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Treatment Preferences of Residents Assumed to Have Severe Chronic Diseases in China: A Discrete Choice Experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Yinghao Lv

    (Department of Health Administration, School of Medicine and Health Management, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430030, China)

  • Qiang Fu

    (Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, College for Public Health and Social Justice, Saint Louis University, St Louis, MO 63103, USA)

  • Xiao Shen

    (Department of Health Administration, School of Medicine and Health Management, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430030, China)

  • Erping Jia

    (Department of Health Administration, School of Medicine and Health Management, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430030, China)

  • Xianglin Li

    (Department of Health Administration, School of Medicine and Health Management, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430030, China)

  • Yingying Peng

    (Department of Health Administration, School of Medicine and Health Management, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430030, China)

  • Jinghong Yan

    (Department of Health Administration, School of Medicine and Health Management, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430030, China)

  • Mingzhu Jiang

    (Department of Health Administration, School of Medicine and Health Management, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430030, China)

  • Juyang Xiong

    (Department of Health Administration, School of Medicine and Health Management, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430030, China)

Abstract

Objectives: This study aims to elicit the relative importance of treatment attributes that influence residents’ choice, assuming they are suffering severe non-communicable diseases (NCDs), to explore how they make trade-offs between these attributes and to estimate the monetary value placed on different attributes and attribute levels. Methods: A discrete choice experiment (DCE) was conducted with adults over 18 years old in China. Preferences were evaluated based on four treatment attributes: care provider, mode of service, distance to practice and cost. A mixed logit model was used to analyze the relative importance of the four attributes and to calculate the willingness to pay (WTP) for a changed attribute level. Results: A total of 93.47% (2019 of 2160) respondents completed valid questionnaires. The WTP results suggested that participants would be willing to pay CNY 822.51 (USD 124.86), CNY 470.54 (USD 71.41) and CNY 68.20 (USD 10.35) for services provided by experts, with integrated traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) and Western medicine (WM) and with a service distance <=30 min, respectively. Conclusions: The results suggested that mode of service, care provider, distance to practice and cost should be considered in priority-setting decisions. The government should strengthen the curative service capability in primary health facilities and give full play to the role of TCM in the prevention and treatment of severe chronic diseases.

Suggested Citation

  • Yinghao Lv & Qiang Fu & Xiao Shen & Erping Jia & Xianglin Li & Yingying Peng & Jinghong Yan & Mingzhu Jiang & Juyang Xiong, 2020. "Treatment Preferences of Residents Assumed to Have Severe Chronic Diseases in China: A Discrete Choice Experiment," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(22), pages 1-10, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:22:p:8420-:d:444807
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/22/8420/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/22/8420/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    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. Michael Clark & Domino Determann & Stavros Petrou & Domenico Moro & Esther Bekker-Grob, 2014. "Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: A Review of the Literature," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 32(9), pages 883-902, September.
    3. Shangfeng Tang & Dong Dong & Lu Ji & Hang Fu & Zhanchun Feng & Ghose Bishwajit & Zhifei He & Hui Ming & Qian Fu & Yue Xian, 2015. "What Contributes to the Activeness of Ethnic Minority Patients with Chronic Illnesses Seeking Allied Health Services? A Cross-Sectional Study in Rural Western China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 12(9), pages 1-15, September.
    4. Atanu Sengupta & Sanjoy De, 2020. "Review of Literature," India Studies in Business and Economics, in: Assessing Performance of Banks in India Fifty Years After Nationalization, chapter 0, pages 15-30, Springer.
    5. Jiang Wu & Shengchao Zhang & Huiqing Chen & Yingyu Lin & Xiaoxin Dong & Xiaoxu Yin & Zuxun Lu & Shiyi Cao, 2016. "Patient Satisfaction with Community Health Service Centers as Gatekeepers and the Influencing Factors: A Cross-Sectional Study in Shenzhen, China," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(8), pages 1-9, August.
    6. Jorien Veldwijk & Mattijs S Lambooij & Esther W de Bekker-Grob & Henriëtte A Smit & G Ardine de Wit, 2014. "The Effect of Including an Opt-Out Option in Discrete Choice Experiments," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(11), pages 1-9, November.
    7. 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.
    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. Antonio Sarría-Santamera & Alua Yeskendir & Tilektes Maulenkul & Binur Orazumbekova & Abduzhappar Gaipov & Iñaki Imaz-Iglesia & Lorena Pinilla-Navas & Teresa Moreno-Casbas & Teresa Corral, 2021. "Population Health and Health Services: Old Challenges and New Realities in the COVID-19 Era," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(4), pages 1-5, February.

    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. 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).
    2. Determann, Domino & Lambooij, Mattijs S. & de Bekker-Grob, Esther W. & Hayen, Arthur P. & Varkevisser, Marco & Schut, Frederik T. & Wit, G. Ardine de, 2016. "What health plans do people prefer? The trade-off between premium and provider choice," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 10-18.
    3. 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.
    4. Marta Trapero-Bertran & Beatriz Rodríguez-Martín & Julio López-Bastida, 2019. "What attributes should be included in a discrete choice experiment related to health technologies? A systematic literature review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(7), pages 1-15, July.
    5. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Rose, John M. & Oppewal, Harmen & Lancsar, Emily, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part I. Macro-scale analysis of literature and integrative synthesis of empirical evidence from applied economics, experimental psychology and neuroimag," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    6. 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).
    7. Scott, Anthony & Witt, Julia, 2020. "Loss aversion, reference dependence and diminishing sensitivity in choice experiments," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 37(C).
    8. 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).
    9. 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.
    10. Peyron, Christine & Pélissier, Aurore & Béjean, Sophie, 2018. "Preference heterogeneity with respect to whole genome sequencing. A discrete choice experiment among parents of children with rare genetic diseases," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 214(C), pages 125-132.
    11. Angeli, Federica & Jaiswal, Anand Kumar & Shrivastava, Saumya, 2022. "Integrating poverty alleviation and environmental protection efforts: A socio-ecological perspective on menstrual health management," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 314(C).
    12. 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.
    13. 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).
    14. Milad Haghani & Michiel C. J. Bliemer & John M. Rose & Harmen Oppewal & Emily Lancsar, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part I. Integrative synthesis of empirical evidence and conceptualisation of external validity," Papers 2102.02940, arXiv.org.
    15. Schuldt, Johannes & Doktor, Anna & Lichters, Marcel & Vogt, Bodo & Robra, Bernt-Peter, 2017. "Insurees’ preferences in hospital choice—A population-based study," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 121(10), pages 1040-1046.
    16. Richard Norman & Rebecca Mercieca‐Bebber & Donna Rowen & John E. Brazier & David Cella & A. Simon Pickard & Deborah J. Street & Rosalie Viney & Dennis Revicki & Madeleine T. King & On behalf of the Eu, 2019. "U.K. utility weights for the EORTC QLU‐C10D," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(12), pages 1385-1401, December.
    17. 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.
    18. Mesfin G. Genie & Mandy Ryan & Nicolas Krucien, 2023. "Keeping an eye on cost: What can eye tracking tell us about attention to cost information in discrete choice experiments?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 32(5), pages 1101-1119, May.
    19. Genie, Mesfin G. & Ryan, Mandy & Krucien, Nicolas, 2021. "To pay or not to pay? Cost information processing in the valuation of publicly funded healthcare," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 276(C).
    20. Galina Williams & Irina Kinchin, 2023. "The application of discrete choice experiments eliciting young peoples’ preferences for healthcare: a systematic literature review," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 24(6), pages 987-998, August.

    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:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:22:p:8420-:d:444807. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.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.