IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0227845.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

What matters to patients? A timely question for value-based care

Author

Listed:
  • Meron Hirpa
  • Tinsay Woreta
  • Hilena Addis
  • Sosena Kebede

Abstract

Background: Our healthcare system is moving towards patient-centered and value-based care models that prioritize health outcomes that matter to patients. However, little is known about what aspects of care patients would prioritize when presented with choices of desirable attributes and whether these patient priorities differ based on certain demographics. Objective: To assess patients’ priorities for a range of attributes in ambulatory care consultations across five key health service delivery domains and determine potential associations between patient priorities and certain demographic profiles. Methods: Using a What Matters to You survey patients ranked in order of importance various choices related to five health service domains (patient-physician relationship, personal responsibility, test/procedures, medications, and cost). Subjects were selected from two Johns Hopkins affiliated primary care clinics and a third gastroenterology subspecialty clinic over a period of 11 months. We calculated the percentage of respondents who selected each quality as their top 1–3 choice. Univariate and multivariate analyses determined demographic characteristics associated with patient priorities. Results: Humanistic qualities of physicians, leading a healthy lifestyle, shared decision making (SDM) for medications and tests/procedures as well as knowledge about insurance coverage were the most frequently ranked choices. Privately insured and more educated patients were less likely to rank humanistic qualities highly. Those with younger age, higher educational attainment and private insurance had higher odds of ranking healthy lifestyle as a top choice. Those with more education had higher odds of ranking SDM as a top choice. Conclusions: Identifying what matters most to patients is useful as we move towards patient-centered and Value Based Care Models. Our findings suggest that patients have priorities on qualities they value across key health service domains. Multiple factors including patient demographics can be predictors of these priorities. Elucidating these preferences is a challenging but a valuable step in the right direction.

Suggested Citation

  • Meron Hirpa & Tinsay Woreta & Hilena Addis & Sosena Kebede, 2020. "What matters to patients? A timely question for value-based care," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(7), pages 1-16, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0227845
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0227845
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0227845
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0227845&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0227845?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Vick, Sandra & Scott, Anthony, 1998. "Agency in health care. Examining patients' preferences for attributes of the doctor-patient relationship," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 17(5), pages 587-605, October.
    2. Epstein, Ronald M. & Franks, Peter & Fiscella, Kevin & Shields, Cleveland G. & Meldrum, Sean C. & Kravitz, Richard L. & Duberstein, Paul R., 2005. "Measuring patient-centered communication in Patient-Physician consultations: Theoretical and practical issues," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 61(7), pages 1516-1528, October.
    3. L. Aubree Shay & Jennifer Elston Lafata, 2015. "Where Is the Evidence? A Systematic Review of Shared Decision Making and Patient Outcomes," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 35(1), pages 114-131, January.
    4. Wensing, Michel & Jung, Hans Peter & Mainz, Jan & Olesen, Frede & Grol, Richard, 1998. "A systematic review of the literature on patient priorities for general practice care. Part 1: Description of the research domain," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 47(10), pages 1573-1588, November.
    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. Andriy Danyliv & Milena Pavlova & Irena Gryga & Wim Groot, 2015. "Preferences for physician services in Ukraine: a discrete choice experiment," International Journal of Health Planning and Management, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(4), pages 346-365, October.
    2. Pinika Patel & Sarah Bernays & Hankiz Dolan & Danielle Marie Muscat & Lyndal Trevena, 2021. "Communication Experiences in Primary Healthcare with Refugees and Asylum Seekers: A Literature Review and Narrative Synthesis," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(4), pages 1-18, February.
    3. Hammar, Henrik & Carlsson, Fredrik, 2001. "Smokers' Decisions To Quit Smoking," Working Papers in Economics 59, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics.
    4. Hyojung Tak & Gregory Ruhnke & Ya-Chen Shih, 2015. "The Association between Patient-Centered Attributes of Care and Patient Satisfaction," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 8(2), pages 187-197, April.
    5. Sheng-Yu Fan & Jyh-Gang Hsieh, 2020. "The Experience of Do-Not-Resuscitate Orders and End-of-Life Care Discussions among Physicians," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(18), pages 1-10, September.
    6. Margaret Gerteis & Rosemary Borck, "undated". "Shared Decision-Making in Practice: Lessons from Implementation Efforts," Mathematica Policy Research Reports f802e52b8442486594ecda927, Mathematica Policy Research.
    7. Sumayah Rodenburg-Vandenbussche & Arwen H Pieterse & Pieter M Kroonenberg & Isabelle Scholl & Trudy van der Weijden & Gre P M Luyten & Roy F P M Kruitwagen & Henk den Ouden & Ingrid V E Carlier & Iren, 2015. "Dutch Translation and Psychometric Testing of the 9-Item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9) and Shared Decision Making Questionnaire-Physician Version (SDM-Q-Doc) in Primary and Secondary ," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(7), pages 1-15, July.
    8. Chen, Yi & Ding, Shuai & Zheng, Handong & Zhang, Youtao & Yang, Shanlin, 2018. "Exploring diffusion strategies for mHealth promotion using evolutionary game model," Applied Mathematics and Computation, Elsevier, vol. 336(C), pages 148-161.
    9. Lee, Yin-Yang & Lin, Julia L., 2010. "Do patient autonomy preferences matter? Linking patient-centered care to patient-physician relationships and health outcomes," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 71(10), pages 1811-1818, November.
    10. Ashill, Nicholas J. & Rod, Michel, 2011. "Burnout processes in non-clinical health service encounters," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 64(10), pages 1116-1127, October.
    11. Underman, Kelly & Hirshfield, Laura E., 2016. "Detached concern?: Emotional socialization in twenty-first century medical education," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 160(C), pages 94-101.
    12. Olivier Thevenon & Philippe Batifoulier, 2003. "L'éthique (médicale) est elle soluble dans le calcul économique?," Post-Print hal-00442960, HAL.
    13. Ishikawa, Hirono & Hashimoto, Hideki & Kiuchi, Takahiro, 2013. "The evolving concept of “patient-centeredness” in patient–physician communication research," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 147-153.
    14. F Alpizar & F Carlsson & P Martinsson, 2003. "Using Choice Experiments for Non-Market Valuation," Economic Issues Journal Articles, Economic Issues, vol. 8(1), pages 83-110, March.
    15. Fiebig, Denzil G. & Haas, Marion & Hossain, Ishrat & Street, Deborah J. & Viney, Rosalie, 2009. "Decisions about Pap tests: What influences women and providers?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 68(10), pages 1766-1774, May.
    16. Jiaqi Chen & Song Xu & Jing Gao, 2020. "The Mixed Effect of China’s New Health Care Reform on Health Insurance Coverage and the Efficiency of Health Service Utilisation: A Longitudinal Approach," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(5), pages 1-13, March.
    17. Stirling Bryan & David Parry, 2002. "Structural reliability of conjoint measurement in health care: an empirical investigation," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 34(5), pages 561-567.
    18. Scott, Anthony, 2001. "Eliciting GPs' preferences for pecuniary and non-pecuniary job characteristics," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(3), pages 329-347, May.
    19. Godager, Geir, 2012. "Birds of a feather flock together: A study of doctor–patient matching," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 296-305.
    20. Udo Schneider & Jürgen Zerth, 2011. "Improving Prevention Compliance through Appropriate Incentives: Theoretical Modelling and Empirical Evidence," Swiss Journal of Economics and Statistics (SJES), Swiss Society of Economics and Statistics (SSES), vol. 147(I), pages 71-106, March.

    More about this item

    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:plo:pone00:0227845. 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.