IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0320854.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Preferences of public sector medical doctors, professional nurses and rehabilitation therapists for multiple job holding regulation: A discrete choice experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Busisiwe Precious Matiwane
  • Laetitia C Rispel
  • Duane Blaauw

Abstract

Introduction: Regulating multiple job holding (MJH) among health professionals is challenging for many health systems. The effectiveness of different MJH policy reforms depends on the behavioural responses of different groups of health professionals but little is known about their preferences and likely reactions. Aim: Investigate the preferences of public sector medical doctors, professional nurses, and rehabilitation therapists for different MJH regulations in two South African provinces. Materials and methods: We developed a novel discrete choice experiment (DCE) to evaluate the preferences of health professionals for jobs with varying MJH policy interventions. The DCE attributes included restrictive regulations (banning MJH) versus reward-oriented policies (increased public sector salaries, expanded overtime, improved clinical practice environment, and better hospital management). We produced an unlabelled DCE using an efficient design and administered it to a representative sample of health professionals. Generalized multinomial logit models were used for analysis. We also investigated group heterogeneity, calculated marginal willingness to pay and estimated uptake for different policies. Results: 1387 participants completed the DCE. The doctors, nurses and rehabilitation therapists were strongly opposed to banning MJH, requiring salary increases of 45.7%, 20.0% and 42.8%, respectively, to accept an MJH ban. Increased public sector salaries significantly increased public sector retention. However, non-financial interventions were also influential. Doctors, nurses, and rehabilitation therapists were willing to forgo 57.9%, 54.8%, and 38.9% of their salaries, respectively, for an improved clinical practice environment. Competent hospital management was also important. There was some preference heterogeneity. Nurses had significantly different preferences for certain attributes compared to the other two groups, and professionals currently engaged in MJH were significantly more opposed to banning MJH. Conclusion: This study provides new information on health professional preferences for different MJH regulations. It confirms the importance of non-financial policy interventions in addressing MJH and the need to tailor MJH policy design.

Suggested Citation

  • Busisiwe Precious Matiwane & Laetitia C Rispel & Duane Blaauw, 2025. "Preferences of public sector medical doctors, professional nurses and rehabilitation therapists for multiple job holding regulation: A discrete choice experiment," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 20(4), pages 1-19, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0320854
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0320854
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0320854
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0320854&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0320854?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. Denzil G. Fiebig & Michael P. Keane & Jordan Louviere & Nada Wasi, 2010. "The Generalized Multinomial Logit Model: Accounting for Scale and Coefficient Heterogeneity," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(3), pages 393-421, 05-06.
    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. David Hensher & John Rose & Zheng Li, 2012. "Does the choice model method and/or the data matter?," Transportation, Springer, vol. 39(2), pages 351-385, March.
    2. James Agarwal & Wayne DeSarbo & Naresh K. Malhotra & Vithala Rao, 2015. "An Interdisciplinary Review of Research in Conjoint Analysis: Recent Developments and Directions for Future Research," Customer Needs and Solutions, Springer;Institute for Sustainable Innovation and Growth (iSIG), vol. 2(1), pages 19-40, March.
    3. Mahieu, Pierre-Alexandre & Andersson, Henrik & Beaumais, Olivier & Crastes dit Sourd, Romain & Hess, François-Charles & Wolff, François-Charles, 2017. "Stated preferences: a unique database composed of 1657 recent published articles in journals related to agriculture, environment, or health," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), vol. 98(3), November.
    4. Line Bjørnskov Pedersen & Julie Riise & Arne Risa Hole & Dorte Gyrd-Hansen, 2014. "GPs' shifting agencies in choice of treatment," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 46(7), pages 750-761, March.
    5. Marco Costanigro & Yuko Onozaka, 2020. "A Belief‐Preference Model of Choice for Experience and Credence Goods," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 71(1), pages 70-95, February.
    6. Lehmann, Nico & Sloot, Daniel & Schüle, Christopher & Ardone, Armin & Fichtner, Wolf, 2023. "The motivational drivers behind consumer preferences for regional electricity – Results of a choice experiment in Southern Germany," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    7. ILes, Richard, 2017. "Government Doctor Absenteeism And Its Effects On Consumer Demand In Rural North India," Working Papers 2018-9, School of Economic Sciences, Washington State University, revised 12 2018.
    8. Hensher, David A., 2012. "Accounting for scale heterogeneity within and between pooled data sources," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 46(3), pages 480-486.
    9. Bartczak, Anna, 2015. "The role of social and environmental attitudes in non-market valuation," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 357-365.
    10. Arne Hole & Julie Kolstad, 2012. "Mixed logit estimation of willingness to pay distributions: a comparison of models in preference and WTP space using data from a health-related choice experiment," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 42(2), pages 445-469, April.
    11. David Hensher & Andrew Collins & William Greene, 2013. "Accounting for attribute non-attendance and common-metric aggregation in a probabilistic decision process mixed multinomial logit model: a warning on potential confounding," Transportation, Springer, vol. 40(5), pages 1003-1020, September.
    12. Martin Falk & Eva Hagsten, 2018. "Winter Weather Anomalies and Individual Destination Choice," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(8), pages 1-14, July.
    13. Laura Enthoven & Goedele Van den Broeck, 2021. "Promoting Food Safety in Local Value Chains: The Case of Vegetables in Vietnam," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-17, June.
    14. Catalina M. Torres Figuerola & Nick Hanley & Sergio Colombo, 2011. "Incorrectly accounting for taste heterogeneity in choice experiments: Does it really matter for welfare measurement?," CRE Working Papers (Documents de treball del CRE) 2011/1, Centre de Recerca Econòmica (UIB ·"Sa Nostra").
    15. Kene Boun My & Quang-Huy Nguyen & Phu Nguyen-Van & Thi Kim Cuong Pham & Anne Stenger & Tuyen Tiet & Nguyen To-The, 2025. "Farmers' preferences toward organic certification scheme: Evidence from a discrete choice experiment in Northern Vietnam," EconomiX Working Papers 2025-6, University of Paris Nanterre, EconomiX.
    16. Tobias Börger, 2016. "Are Fast Responses More Random? Testing the Effect of Response Time on Scale in an Online Choice Experiment," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 65(2), pages 389-413, October.
    17. Richard Norman & Jane Hall & Deborah Street & Rosalie Viney, 2013. "Efficiency And Equity: A Stated Preference Approach," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(5), pages 568-581, May.
    18. Dam, Thi Huyen Trang & Tur-Cardona, Juan & Speelman, Stijn & Amjath-Babu, T.S. & Sam, Anu Susan & Zander, Peter, 2021. "Incremental and transformative adaptation preferences of rice farmers against increasing soil salinity - Evidence from choice experiments in north central Vietnam," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 190(C).
    19. Torres, Cati & Hanley, Nick & Riera, Antoni, 2011. "How wrong can you be? Implications of incorrect utility function specification for welfare measurement in choice experiments," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 62(1), pages 111-121, July.
    20. Araña, Jorge E. & León, Carmelo J., 2013. "Dynamic hypothetical bias in discrete choice experiments: Evidence from measuring the impact of corporate social responsibility on consumers demand," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 53-61.

    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:pone00:0320854. 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.