IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v31y2011i6p816-827.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Relative Importance of Quality of Care Information When Choosing a Hospital for Surgical Treatment

Author

Listed:
  • P. J. Marang-van de Mheen
  • J. Dijs-Elsinga
  • W. Otten
  • M. Versluijs
  • H. J. Smeets
  • R. Vree
  • W. J. van der Made
  • J. Kievit

Abstract

Objective : To assess the impact of quality of care and other hospital information on patients’ choices between hospitals. Methods : 665 former surgical patients were invited to respond to an Internet-based questionnaire including a choice-based conjoint analysis. Each patient was presented with 12 different comparisons of 2 hospitals, with each hospital characterized by 6 attributes containing 2 levels. Hospital attributes were included if frequently reported by patients as most important for future hospital choices. These included both general hospital information (e.g., atmosphere), information on quality of care (e.g., percentage of patients with “textbook outcome†), and surgery-specific information (e.g., possibility for minimally invasive procedure). Hierarchial Bayes estimation was used to estimate the utilities for each attribute level for each patient. Based on the ranges of these utilities, the relative importance of each hospital attribute was determined for each participant as a measure of the impact on patients’ choices. Results : 308 (46.3%) questionnaires were available for analysis. Of the hospital attributes that patients considered, surgery-specific information on average had the highest relative importance (25.7 [23.9–27.5]), regardless of gender, age, and education. Waiting time and hospital atmosphere were considered least important. The attribute concerning the percentage of patients with “textbook outcomes†had the second greatest impact (18.3 [16.9–19.6]), which was similar for patients with different adverse outcome experience. Conclusions : Surgery-specific and quality of care information are more important than general information when patients choose between hospitals.

Suggested Citation

  • P. J. Marang-van de Mheen & J. Dijs-Elsinga & W. Otten & M. Versluijs & H. J. Smeets & R. Vree & W. J. van der Made & J. Kievit, 2011. "The Relative Importance of Quality of Care Information When Choosing a Hospital for Surgical Treatment," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 31(6), pages 816-827, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:31:y:2011:i:6:p:816-827
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X10386799
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X10386799
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X10386799?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. Rinus Haaijer & Michel Wedel & Marco Vriens & Tom Wansbeek, 1998. "Utility Covariances and Context Effects in Conjoint MNP Models," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 17(3), pages 236-252.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Xiaxia Sun & Hongdao Meng & Zhiqiu Ye & Kyaien O Conner & Zhanqi Duan & Danping Liu, 2019. "Factors associated with the choice of primary care facilities for initial treatment among rural and urban residents in Southwestern China," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(2), pages 1-14, February.
    2. Emmert, Martin & Schindler, Anja & Drach, Cordula & Sander, Uwe & Patzelt, Christiane & Stahmeyer, Jona & Kühnel, Elias & Lauerer, Michael & Nagel, Eckhard & Frömke, Cornelia & Schöffski, Oliver & Hep, 2022. "The use intention of hospital report cards among patients in the presence or absence of patient-reported outcomes," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 126(6), pages 541-548.
    3. Schuldt, Johannes & Doktor, Anna & Lichters, Marcel & Vogt, Bodo & Robra, Bernt-Peter, 2017. "Insurees’ preferences in hospital choice—A population-based study," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 121(10), pages 1040-1046.
    4. Moon, Sungho & Kim, Youngwoo & Kim, Minsang & Lee, Jongsu, 2023. "Policy designs to increase public and local acceptance for energy transition in South Korea," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 182(C).

    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. Robert Zeithammer & Peter Lenk, 2006. "Bayesian estimation of multivariate-normal models when dimensions are absent," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 4(3), pages 241-265, September.
    2. Liu, Yu-Hsin, 2011. "Incorporating scatter search and threshold accepting in finding maximum likelihood estimates for the multinomial probit model," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 211(1), pages 130-138, May.
    3. Karsten Hansen & Vishal Singh & Pradeep Chintagunta, 2006. "Understanding Store-Brand Purchase Behavior Across Categories," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(1), pages 75-90, 01-02.
    4. Tuck Siong Chung & Roland T. Rust & Michel Wedel, 2009. "My Mobile Music: An Adaptive Personalization System for Digital Audio Players," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 28(1), pages 52-68, 01-02.
    5. Friederike Paetz & Winfried J. Steiner, 2017. "The benefits of incorporating utility dependencies in finite mixture probit models," OR Spectrum: Quantitative Approaches in Management, Springer;Gesellschaft für Operations Research e.V., vol. 39(3), pages 793-819, July.
    6. Yu-Cheng Ku & Tsun-Feng Chiang & Sheng-Mao Chang, 2017. "Is what you choose what you want?—outlier detection in choice-based conjoint analysis," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 28(1), pages 29-42, March.
    7. Erik Meijer & Jan Rouwendal, 2006. "Measuring welfare effects in models with random coefficients," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(2), pages 227-244, March.
    8. Mandy Ryan & Mabelle Amaya‐Amaya, 2005. "‘Threats’ to and hopes for estimating benefits," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(6), pages 609-619, June.
    9. Ku, Yu-Cheng & Wu, John, 2018. "Measuring respondent uncertainty in discrete choice experiments via utility suppression," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 27(C), pages 1-18.
    10. repec:dgr:rugsom:00f25 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. Sha Yang & Gerg M. Allenby & Geraldine Fennel, 2002. "Modeling Variation in Brand Preference: The Roles of Objective Environment and Motivating Conditions," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 21(1), pages 14-31, May.
    12. Zsolt Sándor & Michel Wedel, 2002. "Profile Construction in Experimental Choice Designs for Mixed Logit Models," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 21(4), pages 455-475, February.
    13. Nadarajah, Saralees & Kotz, Samuel, 2009. "Models for purchase frequency," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 192(3), pages 1014-1026, February.
    14. Xuemei Fu, 2021. "How habit moderates the commute mode decision process: integration of the theory of planned behavior and latent class choice model," Transportation, Springer, vol. 48(5), pages 2681-2707, October.
    15. Jie Yu & Peter Goos & Martina Vandebroek, 2009. "Efficient Conjoint Choice Designs in the Presence of Respondent Heterogeneity," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 28(1), pages 122-135, 01-02.
    16. Xuemei Fu & Zhicai Juan, 2017. "Accommodating preference heterogeneity in commuting mode choice: an empirical investigation in Shaoxing, China," Transportation Planning and Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 40(4), pages 434-448, May.
    17. Lutz Hildebrandt & Lea Kalweit, 2008. "Measuring changes in preferences and perception due to the entry of a new brand with choice data," SFB 649 Discussion Papers SFB649DP2008-057, Sonderforschungsbereich 649, Humboldt University, Berlin, Germany.
    18. Sandeep R. Chandukala & Yancy D. Edwards & Greg M. Allenby, 2011. "Identifying Unmet Demand," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(1), pages 61-73, 01-02.
    19. B. Larivière & D. Van Den Poel, 2004. "Investigating the role of product features in preventing customer churn, by using survival analysis and choice modeling: The case of financial services," Working Papers of Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Ghent University, Belgium 04/223, Ghent University, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration.
    20. Oded Netzer & Olivier Toubia & Eric Bradlow & Ely Dahan & Theodoros Evgeniou & Fred Feinberg & Eleanor Feit & Sam Hui & Joseph Johnson & John Liechty & James Orlin & Vithala Rao, 2008. "Beyond conjoint analysis: Advances in preference measurement," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 19(3), pages 337-354, December.
    21. Paetz, Friederike & Steiner, Winfried J., 2018. "Utility independence versus IIA property in independent probit models," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 26(C), pages 41-47.

    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:sae:medema:v:31:y:2011:i:6:p:816-827. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.