IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0292308.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Patient preferences and cost-benefit of hypertension and hyperlipidemia collaborative management model between pharmacies and primary care in Portugal: A discrete choice experiment alongside a trial (USFarmácia®)

Author

Listed:
  • Suzete Costa
  • José Guerreiro
  • Inês Teixeira
  • Dennis K Helling
  • Céu Mateus
  • João Pereira

Abstract

Background: Little is known about patient preferences and the value of pharmacy-collaborative disease management with primary care using technology-driven interprofessional communication under real-world conditions. Discrete Choice Experiments (DCEs) are useful for quantifying preferences for non-market services. Objectives: 1) To explore variation in patient preferences and estimate willingness-to-accept annual cost to the National Health Service (NHS) for attributes of a collaborative intervention trial between pharmacies and primary care using a trial exit DCE interview; 2) to incorporate a DCE into an economic evaluation using cost-benefit analysis (CBA). Methods: We performed a DCE telephone interview with a sample of hypertension and hyperlipidemia trial patients 12 months after trial onset. We used five attributes (levels): waiting time to get urgent/not urgent medical appointment (7 days/45 days; 48 hrs./30 days; same day/15 days), model of pharmacy intervention (5-min. counter basic check; 15-min. office every 3 months for BP and medication review of selected medicines; 30-min. office every 6 months for comprehensive measurements and medication review of all medicines), integration with primary care (weak; partial; full), chance of having a stroke in 5 years (same; slightly lower; much lower), and annual cost to the NHS (0€; 30€; 51€; 76€). We used an experimental orthogonal fractional factorial design. Data were analyzed using conditional logit. We subtracted the estimated annual incremental trial costs from the mean WTA (Net Benefit) for CBA. Results: A total of 122 patients completed the survey. Waiting time to get medical appointment—on the same day (urgent) and within 15 days (non-urgent)—was the most important attribute, followed by 30-minute pharmacy intervention in private office every 6 months for point-of-care measurements and medication review of all medicines, and full integration with primary care. The cost attribute was not significant. Intervention patients were willing to accept the NHS annual cost of €877 for their preferred scenario. The annual net benefit per patient is €788.20 and represents the monetary value of patients’ welfare surplus for this model. Conclusions: This study is the first conducted in Portugal alongside a pharmacy collaborative trial, incorporating DCE into CBA. The findings can be used to guide the design of pharmacy collaborative interventions with primary care with the potential for reimbursement for uncontrolled or at-risk chronic disease patients informed by patient preferences. Future DCE studies conducted in community pharmacy may provide additional contributions. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials (ISRCTN): ISRCTN13410498, retrospectively registered on 12 December 2018.

Suggested Citation

  • Suzete Costa & José Guerreiro & Inês Teixeira & Dennis K Helling & Céu Mateus & João Pereira, 2023. "Patient preferences and cost-benefit of hypertension and hyperlipidemia collaborative management model between pharmacies and primary care in Portugal: A discrete choice experiment alongside a trial (," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 18(10), pages 1-20, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0292308
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0292308
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0292308
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0292308&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0292308?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. 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.
    2. van de Pol, Jeroen M. & Heringa, Mette & Koster, Ellen S. & Bouvy, Marcel L., 2021. "Preferences of patients regarding community pharmacy services: A discrete choice experiment," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 125(11), pages 1415-1420.
    3. McIntosh, Emma & Clarke, Philip & Frew, Emma & Louviere, Jordan (ed.), 2010. "Applied Methods of Cost-Benefit Analysis in Health Care," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199237128, Decembrie.
    4. Jesús Martín-Fernández & Mª Isabel del Cura-González & Gemma Rodríguez-Martínez & Gloria Ariza-Cardiel & Javier Zamora & Tomás Gómez-Gascón & Elena Polentinos-Castro & Francisco Javier Pérez-Rivas & J, 2013. "Economic Valuation of Health Care Services in Public Health Systems: A Study about Willingness to Pay (WTP) for Nursing Consultations," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(4), pages 1-9, April.
    5. Gin Nie Chua & Christine Bond & Terry Porteous & Mandy Ryan, 2022. "Will the Public Engage with New Pharmacy Roles? Assessing Future Uptake of a Community Pharmacy Health Check Using a Discrete Choice Experiment," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 15(4), pages 473-483, July.
    6. Michela Tinelli & Mandy Ryan & Christine Bond, 2016. "What, who and when? Incorporating a discrete choice experiment into an economic evaluation," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 6(1), pages 1-9, December.
    7. Rakhee Raghunandan & Kirsten Howard & Carlo A. Marra & June Tordoff & Alesha Smith, 2022. "Identifying New Zealand Public Preferences for Pharmacist Prescribers in Primary Care: A Discrete Choice Experiment," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 15(1), pages 77-92, January.
    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. Rhiannon Tudor Edwards & Catherine Louise Lawrence, 2021. "‘What You See is All There is’: The Importance of Heuristics in Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA) and Social Return on Investment (SROI) in the Evaluation of Public Health Interventions," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 19(5), pages 653-664, September.
    2. Don Husereau & Michael Drummond & Stavros Petrou & Dan Greenberg & Josephine Mauskopf & Federico Augustovski & Andrew Briggs & David Moher & Elizabeth Loder & Chris Carswell, 2015. "Reply to Roberts et al.: CHEERS is Sufficient for Reporting Cost-Benefit Analysis, but May Require Further Elaboration," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 33(5), pages 535-536, May.
    3. Emma Frew, 2017. "Aligning Health Economics Methods to Fit with the Changing World of Public Health," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 15(3), pages 287-289, June.
    4. Ngouhouo Poufoun, Jonas & Abildtrup, Jens & Sonwa, Dénis Jean & Delacote, Philippe, 2016. "The value of endangered forest elephants to local communities in a transboundary conservation landscape," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 70-86.
    5. Edouard Louis & Juan M. Ramos-Goñi & Jesus Cuervo & Uri Kopylov & Manuel Barreiro-de Acosta & Sara McCartney & Greg Rosenfeld & Dominik Bettenworth & Ailsa Hart & Kerri Novak & Xavier Donnet & David E, 2020. "A Qualitative Research for Defining Meaningful Attributes for the Treatment of Inflammatory Bowel Disease from the Patient Perspective," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 13(3), pages 317-325, June.
    6. Afentoula G. Mavrodi & Vassilis H. Aletras, 2019. "Preliminary Results of a Healthcare Contingent Valuation Study in Greece," International Journal of Finance, Insurance and Risk Management, International Journal of Finance, Insurance and Risk Management, vol. 9(3-4), pages 3-16.
    7. Mark Sculpher & Karl Claxton, 2012. "Real Economics Needs to Reflect Real Decisions," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 133-136, February.
    8. Din, Anwarud & Li, Yongjin & Khan, Tahir & Zaman, Gul, 2020. "Mathematical analysis of spread and control of the novel corona virus (COVID-19) in China," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 141(C).
    9. Paul Hodgkins & Paul Swinburn & Dory Solomon & Linnette Yen & Sarah Dewilde & Andrew Lloyd, 2012. "Patient Preferences for First-Line Oral Treatment for Mild-to-Moderate Ulcerative Colitis," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 5(1), pages 33-44, March.
    10. Yilmaz, Selin & Chanez, Cédric & Cuony, Peter & Patel, Martin Kumar, 2022. "Analysing utility-based direct load control programmes for heat pumps and electric vehicles considering customer segmentation," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 164(C).
    11. Shono, Aiko & Kondo, Masahide & Ohmae, Hiroshi & Okubo, Ichiro, 2014. "Willingness to pay for public health services in rural Central Java, Indonesia: Methodological considerations when using the contingent valuation method," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 31-40.
    12. Lindgren, Petter Y. & Presterud, Ane Ofstad, 2021. "Expanding the Norwegian Armed Forces in the Time of Corona: Benefit-Cost Analysis in the Context of High Unemployment Rate," MPRA Paper 106405, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    13. Hassan, Alhassan Yosri Ibrahim & Cucculelli, Marco & Lamura, Giovanni, 2023. "Caregivers’ willingness to pay for digital support services: Comparative survey," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 130(C).
    14. Nind, James & Marra, Carlo A. & Scahill, Shane & Mather, Damien & Smith, Alesha, 2025. "The development of a discrete choice experiment: Investigating pharmacy selection in New Zealand," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 153(C).
    15. Michela Tinelli & Mandy Ryan & Christine Bond, 2016. "What, who and when? Incorporating a discrete choice experiment into an economic evaluation," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 6(1), pages 1-9, December.
    16. Sabina Sanghera & Emma Frew & Janesh Gupta & Joe Kai & Tracy Roberts, 2015. "Exploring the Use of Cost-Benefit Analysis to Compare Pharmaceutical Treatments for Menorrhagia," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 33(9), pages 957-965, September.
    17. Marian Shanahan & Alison Ritter, 2014. "Cost Benefit Analysis of Two Policy Options for Cannabis: Status Quo and Legalisation," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(4), pages 1-12, April.
    18. Hanson, Torbjørn & Lindgren, Petter Y., 2019. "No country for old men? Increasing the retirement age in the Armed Forces," MPRA Paper 95917, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    19. Tóthová Dominika, 2020. "Respiratory Diseases in Children and Air Pollution – The Cost of – Illness Assessment in Ostrava City," Central European Journal of Public Policy, Sciendo, vol. 14(1), pages 43-56, June.
    20. David J. Mott & Laura Ternent & Luke Vale, 2023. "Do preferences differ based on respondent experience of a health issue and its treatment? A case study using a public health intervention," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 24(3), pages 413-423, April.

    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:pone00:0292308. 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.