IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/aphecp/v19y2021i2d10.1007_s40258-020-00615-3.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Identifying Community Pharmacist Preferences For Prescribing Services in Primary Care in New Zealand: A Discrete Choice Experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Rakhee Raghunandan

    (University of Otago)

  • Kirsten Howard

    (University of Sydney)

  • Carlo A. Marra

    (University of Otago)

  • June Tordoff

    (University of Otago)

  • Alesha Smith

    (University of Otago)

Abstract

Objective Given increasing patient populations, general practitioner (GP) workforce constraints and increasing demand for health services in New Zealand (NZ), the development and provision of pharmacist prescribing services may need to increase to improve people’s access to medicines. A discrete choice experiment (DCE) was utilised to determine community pharmacist preferences for prescribing services in primary care in NZ, and to understand how these factors could improve the provision of pharmacist prescribing services. Methods A D-efficient design generated 30 labelled choice questions in three blocks of ten, and three alternatives per choice question. The online DCE was emailed to practising community pharmacists in NZ. The DCE included two attributes with five levels (prescribing model, educational requirements) and three attributes with three levels (location, professional fee, change in income). A mixed multinomial logit model was used to estimate preferences. Results A total of 264 respondents completed the survey with 2640 observations for analyses. This DCE found pharmacists preferred pharmacy services with the following characteristics: ability to prescribe using minor ailments and independent prescribing models relative to the pharmacist-only medicines prescribing model; prescribing education by accredited learning modules relative to PGDipClinPharm + PGCertPharmPres; remuneration via a professional fee; and pharmacist prescribing services located in community pharmacies rather than in GP practices. Conclusions Prescribing policy could incorporate these pharmacist preferences to help develop accessible and effective pharmacist prescribing services that not only improve access to medicines, but also address inequity of access to medicines in NZ. These DCE results are encouraging as they signal that the community pharmacists also see themselves and their pharmacies as part of the prescribing team in primary care in NZ.

Suggested Citation

  • Rakhee Raghunandan & Kirsten Howard & Carlo A. Marra & June Tordoff & Alesha Smith, 2021. "Identifying Community Pharmacist Preferences For Prescribing Services in Primary Care in New Zealand: A Discrete Choice Experiment," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 19(2), pages 253-266, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:aphecp:v:19:y:2021:i:2:d:10.1007_s40258-020-00615-3
    DOI: 10.1007/s40258-020-00615-3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40258-020-00615-3
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40258-020-00615-3?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hensher,David A. & Rose,John M. & Greene,William H., 2015. "Applied Choice Analysis," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107465923, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Blog mentions

    As found by EconAcademics.org, the blog aggregator for Economics research:
    1. Journal round-up: Applied Health Economics and Health Policy 19(2)
      by karanshahk2 in The Academic Health Economists' Blog on 2021-04-19 06:00:07

    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. Canessa, Carolin & Venus, Terese E. & Wiesmeier, Miriam & Mennig, Philipp & Sauer, Johannes, 2023. "Incentives, Rewards or Both in Payments for Ecosystem Services: Drawing a Link Between Farmers' Preferences and Biodiversity Levels," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 213(C).
    2. Sant'Anna, Ana Claudia & Bergtold, Jason & Shanoyan, Aleksan & Caldas, Marcellus & Granco, Gabriel, 2021. "Deal or No Deal? Analysis of Bioenergy Feedstock Contract Choice with Multiple Opt-out Options and Contract Attribute Substitutability," 2021 Conference, August 17-31, 2021, Virtual 315289, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    3. Boyce, Christopher & Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Hanley, Nick, 2019. "Personality and economic choices," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 82-100.
    4. Giovanna Piracci & Emilia Lamonaca & Fabio Gaetano Santeramo & Fabio Boncinelli & Leonardo Casini, 2024. "On the willingness to pay for food sustainability labelling: A meta‐analysis," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 55(2), pages 329-345, March.
    5. Ratcliffe, Julie & Huynh, Elisabeth & Chen, Gang & Stevens, Katherine & Swait, Joffre & Brazier, John & Sawyer, Michael & Roberts, Rachel & Flynn, Terry, 2016. "Valuing the Child Health Utility 9D: Using profile case best worst scaling methods to develop a new adolescent specific scoring algorithm," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 48-59.
    6. Qian, Lixian & Grisolía, Jose M. & Soopramanien, Didier, 2019. "The impact of service and government-policy attributes on consumer preferences for electric vehicles in China," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 70-84.
    7. Roy Brouwer & Solomon Tarfasa, 2020. "Testing hypothetical bias in a framed field experiment," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 68(3), pages 343-357, September.
    8. Feucht, Yvonne & Zander, Katrin, 2017. "Consumers' Willingness to Pay for Climate-Friendly Food in European Countries," 2018 International European Forum (163rd EAAE Seminar), February 5-9, 2018, Innsbruck-Igls, Austria 276930, International European Forum on System Dynamics and Innovation in Food Networks.
    9. Esther W. Bekker-Grob & Bas Donkers & Jorien Veldwijk & Marcel F. Jonker & Sylvia Buis & Jan Huisman & Patrick Bindels, 2021. "What Factors Influence Non-Participation Most in Colorectal Cancer Screening? A Discrete Choice Experiment," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 14(2), pages 269-281, March.
    10. Jaewoong Yun, 2023. "Strategies for Improving the Sustainability of Fare-Free Policy for the Elderly through Preferences by Travel Modes," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(20), pages 1-14, October.
    11. de Jong, Gerard & Kouwenhoven, Marco & Ruijs, Kim & van Houwe, Pieter & Borremans, Dana, 2016. "A time-period choice model for road freight transport in Flanders based on stated preference data," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 20-31.
    12. Tamaki Kitagawa & Kenichi Kashiwagi & Hiroko Isoda, 2020. "Effect of Religious and Cultural Information of Olive Oil on Consumer Behavior: Evidence from Japan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-17, January.
    13. Du, Hua & Han, Qi & de Vries, Bauke & Sun, Jun, 2024. "Community solar PV adoption in residential apartment buildings: A case study on influencing factors and incentive measures in Wuhan," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 354(PA).
    14. Bernadeta Gołębiowska & Anna Bartczak & Mikołaj Czajkowski, 2020. "Energy Demand Management and Social Norms," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(15), pages 1-20, July.
    15. Minhaj Mahmud & Italo A Gutierrez & Krishna B Kumar & Shanthi Nataraj, 2021. "What Aspects of Formality Do Workers Value? Evidence from a Choice Experiment in Bangladesh," The World Bank Economic Review, World Bank, vol. 35(2), pages 303-327.
    16. Nicolas Jacquemet & Stephane Luchini & Jason Shogren & Verity Watson, 2019. "Discrete Choice under Oaths," Post-Print halshs-02136103, HAL.
    17. Ju-Hee Kim & Younggew Kim & Seung-Hoon Yoo, 2021. "Using a choice experiment to explore the public willingness to pay for the impacts of improving energy efficiency of an apartment," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 55(5), pages 1775-1793, October.
    18. Gustavo García-Melero & Rubén Sainz-González & Pablo Coto-Millán & Alejandra Valencia-Vásquez, 2021. "Sustainable Mobility Policy Analysis Using Hybrid Choice Models: Is It the Right Choice?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-16, March.
    19. John Buckell & Vrinda Vasavada & Sarah Wordsworth & Dean A. Regier & Matthew Quaife, 2022. "Utility maximization versus regret minimization in health choice behavior: Evidence from four datasets," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(2), pages 363-381, February.
    20. Hensher, David A. & Teye, Collins, 2019. "Commodity interaction in freight movement models for New South Wales," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 80(C).

    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:spr:aphecp:v:19:y:2021:i:2:d:10.1007_s40258-020-00615-3. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.