IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0316547.html

How value perspectives influence decision-making in the South African private healthcare sector: A cross-sectional comparative study

Author

Listed:
  • Anchen Laubscher
  • Reitze N Rodseth
  • Francois Retief
  • Adrian Saville

Abstract

Background: Every healthcare clinical event aims to create value at a certain cost. This value has been defined as the outcome achieved (the degree to which a care event achieved a clinical goal) divided by the cost incurred (determined by the combined price charged by the care provides) to generate the outcome. Subsequently, patient experience has been included as a third factor contributing to value of care, but its value and relationship relative to clinical outcome and event cost is not well understood. This cross-sectional comparative study explored the relative importance of 1) clinical outcome, 2) event cost, and 3) patient experience as they relate to the value of care in the South African private healthcare context. Materials and methods: Using a value perspectives survey, healthcare consumers (n = 662) and healthcare providers (n = 318) distributed 100 points between the three factors according to how they perceived their value. They were then asked to assess the value of the three factors across six clinical scenarios progressing in clinical severity. Results: For all scenarios, all participants valued patient experience above event cost, but lower than clinical outcome. However, there were significant differences between consumers and providers in the relative value assigned to each of the three factors. These values changed as the severity of the surgical and medical scenarios changed. Patient experience was consistently assigned a higher value than event cost, thereby making a strong argument for its inclusion into the healthcare value equation. Conclusion: Both South African healthcare consumers and providers assigned significant value to patient experience across a range of clinical scenarios. These findings suggest that patient experience should be included as a factor in the Value Care Index (VCI) where VCI = (Outcome ÷ Cost) x Patient Experience.

Suggested Citation

  • Anchen Laubscher & Reitze N Rodseth & Francois Retief & Adrian Saville, 2025. "How value perspectives influence decision-making in the South African private healthcare sector: A cross-sectional comparative study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 20(2), pages 1-12, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0316547
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0316547
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0316547
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0316547&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0316547?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. Kevin Marsh & Tereza Lanitis & David Neasham & Panagiotis Orfanos & Jaime Caro, 2014. "Assessing the Value of Healthcare Interventions Using Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis: A Review of the Literature," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 32(4), pages 345-365, April.
    2. Luca Lorenzoni & Tomáš Roubal, 2016. "International Comparison of South African Private Hospital Price Levels," OECD Health Working Papers 85, OECD Publishing.
    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. Safa Chabouh & Sondes Hammami & Hafedh Fessi & Abdellatif Achour, 2025. "Towards sustainable dialysis modality selection: a multi-expert fuzzy analytical hierarchy process based approach for guided decision making," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 351(1), pages 779-807, August.
    2. Virginia Wiseman & Craig Mitton & Mary M. Doyle‐Waters & Tom Drake & Lesong Conteh & Anthony T. Newall & Obinna Onwujekwe & Stephen Jan, 2016. "Using Economic Evidence to Set Healthcare Priorities in Low‐Income and Lower‐Middle‐Income Countries: A Systematic Review of Methodological Frameworks," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 25(S1), pages 140-161, February.
    3. Salah Ghabri & Jean-Michel Josselin & Benoît Le Maux, 2019. "Could or Should We Use MCDA in the French HTA Process?," Post-Print halshs-02319704, HAL.
    4. Angelis, Aris & Kanavos, Panos, 2017. "Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) for evaluating new medicines in Health Technology Assessment and beyond: The Advance Value Framework," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 188(C), pages 137-156.
    5. Jason C Hsu & Jia-Yu Lin & Peng-Chan Lin & Yang-Cheng Lee, 2019. "Comprehensive value assessment of drugs using a multi-criteria decision analysis: An example of targeted therapies for metastatic colorectal cancer treatment," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(12), pages 1-17, December.
    6. Cuoghi, Kaio Guilherme & Leoneti, Alexandre Bevilacqua & Passador, João Luiz, 2022. "On the choice of public or private management models in the Brazilian Unified Health System (SUS)," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 84(C).
    7. Torkayesh, Ali Ebadi & Pamucar, Dragan & Ecer, Fatih & Chatterjee, Prasenjit, 2021. "An integrated BWM-LBWA-CoCoSo framework for evaluation of healthcare sectors in Eastern Europe," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    8. Ivlev, Ilya & Vacek, Jakub & Kneppo, Peter, 2015. "Multi-criteria decision analysis for supporting the selection of medical devices under uncertainty," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 247(1), pages 216-228.
    9. Gregório, Beatriz Cagigal & Pereira, Miguel Alves & Costa, Ana Sara, 2024. "Multi-criteria decision-aiding for public hospitals: The role of interactions among pairs of access and quality criteria," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 126(C).
    10. Bratanova, Alexandra & Ford, Jerad A. & Schleiger, Emma, 2023. "Prioritising Investment Opportunities in Research and Development Using Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis," MPRA Paper 116458, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    11. Bratanova, Alexandra & Cameron, Alicia & Thavat, Maylee & Fyfield, Amelia & Hajkowicz, Stefan, 2023. "Priority setting in international trade – application of multiple criteria decision analysis for Australian-Indonesia trade in the health sector," MPRA Paper 119407, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    12. Viviane Cássia Pereira & Jorge Otávio Maia Barreto & Francisco Assis da Rocha Neves, 2019. "Health technology reassessment in the Brazilian public health system: Analysis of the current status," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(7), pages 1-18, July.
    13. Aris Angelis & Ansgar Lange & Panos Kanavos, 2018. "Using health technology assessment to assess the value of new medicines: results of a systematic review and expert consultation across eight European countries," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 19(1), pages 123-152, January.
    14. Brian Reddy & Praveen Thokala & Alison Iliff & Kerry Warhurst & Helen Chambers & Lynsey Bowker & Stephen J. Walters & Alejandra Duenas & Michael P. Kelly, 2016. "Using MCDA to generate and interpret evidence to inform local government investment in public health," EURO Journal on Decision Processes, Springer;EURO - The Association of European Operational Research Societies, vol. 4(3), pages 161-181, November.
    15. Mónica D. Oliveira & Inês Mataloto & Panos Kanavos, 2019. "Multi-criteria decision analysis for health technology assessment: addressing methodological challenges to improve the state of the art," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(6), pages 891-918, August.
    16. Sonja Kuipers & Stynke Castelein & Linda Kronenberg & Job van ’t Veer & Nynke Boonstra, 2024. "The Development of an Oral Health Nursing Tool for Patients with a Psychotic Disorder: A Human-Centred Design with a Feasibility Test," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 21(4), pages 1-28, April.
    17. Eric Picard & Alexander Zimper, 2022. "Moving from a bad to a good pricing regime: The South African private health care market," South African Journal of Economics, Economic Society of South Africa, vol. 90(2), pages 260-276, June.
    18. Alessandro Gonçalves Campolina & Maria Del Pilar Estevez-Diz & Jair Minoro Abe & Patrícia Coelho de Soárez, 2022. "Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) for evaluating cancer treatments in hospital-based health technology assessment: The Paraconsistent Value Framework," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(5), pages 1-22, May.
    19. Panos Kanavos & Olivier Wouters & Aris Angelis & Panos Kanavos & Gilberto Montibeller, 2017. "Resource Allocation and Priority Setting in Health Care: A Multi-criteria Decision Analysis Problem of Value?," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 8, pages 76-83, March.
    20. Irina Odnoletkova & Dirk Ramaekers & Frank Nobels & Geert Goderis & Bert Aertgeerts & Lieven Annemans, 2016. "Delivering Diabetes Education through Nurse-Led Telecoaching. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(10), pages 1-18, October.

    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:pone00:0316547. 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.