IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v20y2023i14p6358-d1193060.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Patient Preferences for Long-Term Implant Care in Cochlear, Glaucoma and Cardiovascular Diseases

Author

Listed:
  • Sabine Schulz

    (Cologne Center for Ethics, Rights, Economics, and Social Sciences of Health (CERES), University of Cologne and University Hospital of Cologne, Universitätsstraße 91, 50931 Cologne, Germany)

  • Laura Harzheim

    (Cologne Center for Ethics, Rights, Economics, and Social Sciences of Health (CERES), University of Cologne and University Hospital of Cologne, Universitätsstraße 91, 50931 Cologne, Germany)

  • Constanze Hübner

    (Center for Life Ethics, University of Bonn, 53113 Bonn, Germany)

  • Mariya Lorke

    (Faculty of Engineering and Mathematics, University of Applied Sciences and Arts (HSBI), 33619 Bielefeld, Germany)

  • Saskia Jünger

    (Department of Community Health, University of Applied Health Sciences Bochum, Gesundheitscampus 6-8, 44801 Bochum, Germany)

  • Annika Buchholz

    (Department of Otolaryngology, Hannover Medical School, Carl-Neuberg-Str. 1, 30625 Hannover, Germany)

  • Stefanie Frech

    (Department of Ophthalmology, Rostock University Medical Center, Doberaner Str. 140, 18057 Rostock, Germany)

  • Melanie Steffens

    (Department of Otolaryngology, Hannover Medical School, Carl-Neuberg-Str. 1, 30625 Hannover, Germany)

  • Christiane Woopen

    (Center for Life Ethics, University of Bonn, 53113 Bonn, Germany)

Abstract

In the process of developing and implementing innovative implant technologies the consideration of patient preferences can be beneficial for patients, doctors and developers. Nevertheless, in existing literature, there is still scarce knowledge of patients’ perspectives on long-term implant care. In this study, three discrete choice experiments (DCEs) were conducted in the context of cochlear implants (CI, n = 92), glaucoma implants (GI, n = 21) and cardiovascular implants (CVI, n = 23), examining the relative importance of attributes of long-term implant care from the patients’ perspective. The participants chose between differently shaped options for implant-related care. The attributes of these care options were generated and selected based on previous literature reviews, group discussions and a diary study with patients. The choice data were analyzed via binary logit regression. In CI-DCE, the technological compatibility of the implant with newer implant models, accessories or devices from other manufacturers was highly valued by participants, whereas in GI-DCE the (in)dependency on glaucoma medication post-implantation had the greatest influence on participants’ choice behavior. In CVI-DCE, the attribute with the highest relative importance related to the means of securing long-term treatment success. In all three DCE, shared decision making was relatively important for participants. Our results emphasized the importance of an adequate transfer of technological advancements in implant care for promoting patient benefits, such as the availability of comprehensible, understandable, high-quality information about current developments. Similarly, promoting technological health literacy and further pushing the technological compatibility, durability and safety of implants are directions for future implant development in accordance with patients’ preferences. Therefore, the participation of implant wearers in the development process is encouraged.

Suggested Citation

  • Sabine Schulz & Laura Harzheim & Constanze Hübner & Mariya Lorke & Saskia Jünger & Annika Buchholz & Stefanie Frech & Melanie Steffens & Christiane Woopen, 2023. "Patient Preferences for Long-Term Implant Care in Cochlear, Glaucoma and Cardiovascular Diseases," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(14), pages 1-19, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:20:y:2023:i:14:p:6358-:d:1193060
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/20/14/6358/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/20/14/6358/
    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. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. Constanze Hübner & Mariya Lorke & Annika Buchholz & Stefanie Frech & Laura Harzheim & Sabine Schulz & Saskia Jünger & Christiane Woopen, 2022. "Health Literacy in the Context of Implant Care—Perspectives of (Prospective) Implant Wearers on Individual and Organisational Factors," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(12), pages 1-36, June.
    5. Stefanie Frech & Daniel Kreft & Rudolf F Guthoff & Gabriele Doblhammer, 2018. "Pharmacoepidemiological assessment of adherence and influencing co-factors among primary open-angle glaucoma patients—An observational cohort study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(1), pages 1-14, January.
    6. Louviere, Jordan J. & Lancsar, Emily, 2009. "Choice experiments in health: the good, the bad, the ugly and toward a brighter future," Health Economics, Policy and Law, Cambridge University Press, vol. 4(4), pages 527-546, October.
    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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).
    4. 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).
    5. 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.
    6. Samare P. I. Huls & Emily Lancsar & Bas Donkers & Jemimah Ride, 2022. "Two for the price of one: If moving beyond traditional single‐best discrete choice experiments, should we use best‐worst, best‐best or ranking for preference elicitation?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(12), pages 2630-2647, December.
    7. Cleland, Jennifer & Porteous, Terry & Ejebu, Ourega-Zoé & Ryan, Mandy & Skåtun, Diane, 2022. "Won't you stay just a little bit longer? A discrete choice experiment of UK doctors’ preferences for delaying retirement," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 126(1), pages 60-68.
    8. 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).
    9. Chiara Seghieri & Alessandro Mengoni & Sabina Nuti, 2014. "Applying discrete choice modelling in a priority setting: an investigation of public preferences for primary care models," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 15(7), pages 773-785, September.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. Pierre-Alexandre Mahieu & Henrik Andersson & Olivier Beaumais & Romain Crastes & François-Charles Wolff, 2014. "Is Choice Experiment Becoming more Popular than Contingent Valuation? A Systematic Review in Agriculture, Environment and Health," Working Papers 2014.12, FAERE - French Association of Environmental and Resource Economists.
    13. Matthew Quaife & Fern Terris-Prestholt & Gian Luca Di Tanna & Peter Vickerman, 2018. "How well do discrete choice experiments predict health choices? A systematic review and meta-analysis of external validity," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 19(8), pages 1053-1066, November.
    14. 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.
    15. Shimeng Liu & Yingyao Chen & Shunping Li & Ningze Xu & Chengxiang Tang & Yan Wei, 2021. "What Are the Important Factors Influencing the Recruitment and Retention of Doctoral Students in a Public Health Setting? A Discrete Choice Experiment Survey in China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(18), pages 1-14, September.
    16. Oedingen, Carina & Bartling, Tim & Schrem, Harald & Mühlbacher, Axel C. & Krauth, Christian, 2021. "Public preferences for the allocation of donor organs for transplantation: A discrete choice experiment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 287(C).
    17. Mesfin G. Genie & Nicolas Krucien & Mandy Ryan, 2021. "Weighting or aggregating? Investigating information processing in multi‐attribute choices," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(6), pages 1291-1305, June.
    18. 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).
    19. 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.
    20. 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).

    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:20:y:2023:i:14:p:6358-:d:1193060. 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.