IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/hecrev/v10y2020i1d10.1186_s13561-020-00295-8.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Systematic review and validity assessment of methods used in discrete choice experiments of primary healthcare professionals

Author

Listed:
  • Gregory Merlo

    (University of Queensland
    University of Queensland)

  • Mieke Driel

    (University of Queensland)

  • Lisa Hall

    (University of Queensland
    University of Queensland)

Abstract

Introduction Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) have been used to measure patient and healthcare professionals preferences in a range of settings internationally. Using DCEs in primary care is valuable for determining how to improve rational shared decision making. The purpose of this systematic review is to assess the validity of the methods used for DCEs assessing the decision making of healthcare professionals in primary care. Main body A systematic search was conducted to identify articles with original data from a discrete choice experiment where the population was primary healthcare professionals. All publication dates from database inception to 29th February 2020 were included. A data extraction and validity assessment template based on guidelines was used. After screening, 34 studies met the eligibility criteria and were included in the systematic review. The sample sizes of the DCEs ranged from 10 to 3727. The published DCEs often provided insufficient detail about the process of determining the attributes and levels. The majority of the studies did not involve primary care healthcare professionals outside of the research team in attribute identification and selection. Less than 80% of the DCEs were piloted and few papers investigated internal or external validity. Conclusions For findings to translate into improvements in rational shared decision making in primary care DCEs need to be internally and externally valid and the findings need to be able to be communicated to stakeholders in a way that is understandable and relevant.

Suggested Citation

  • Gregory Merlo & Mieke Driel & Lisa Hall, 2020. "Systematic review and validity assessment of methods used in discrete choice experiments of primary healthcare professionals," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 10(1), pages 1-9, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:hecrev:v:10:y:2020:i:1:d:10.1186_s13561-020-00295-8
    DOI: 10.1186/s13561-020-00295-8
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1186/s13561-020-00295-8
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1186/s13561-020-00295-8?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. Li, Jinhu & Scott, Anthony & McGrail, Matthew & Humphreys, John & Witt, Julia, 2014. "Retaining rural doctors: Doctors' preferences for rural medical workforce incentives," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 56-64.
    2. Scott, Anthony & Witt, Julia & Humphreys, John & Joyce, Catherine & Kalb, Guyonne & Jeon, Sung-Hee & McGrail, Matthew, 2013. "Getting doctors into the bush: General Practitioners' preferences for rural location," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 33-44.
    3. Line Pedersen & Dorte Gyrd-Hansen, 2014. "Preference for practice: a Danish study on young doctors’ choice of general practice using a discrete choice experiment," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 15(6), pages 611-621, July.
    4. Fiebig, Denzil G. & Haas, Marion & Hossain, Ishrat & Street, Deborah J. & Viney, Rosalie, 2009. "Decisions about Pap tests: What influences women and providers?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 68(10), pages 1766-1774, May.
    5. Pedersen, Line Bjørnskov & Kjær, Trine & Kragstrup, Jakob & Gyrd-Hansen, Dorte, 2012. "General practitioners’ preferences for the organisation of primary care: A discrete choice experiment," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 106(3), pages 246-256.
    6. Sicsic, Jonathan & Krucien, Nicolas & Franc, Carine, 2016. "What are GPs' preferences for financial and non-financial incentives in cancer screening? Evidence for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancers," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 116-127.
    7. Matthew Quaife & Fern Terris-Prestholt & Gian Luca Di Tanna & Peter Vickerman, 2018. "How well do discrete choice experiments predict health choices? A systematic review and meta-analysis of external validity," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 19(8), pages 1053-1066, November.
    8. Caroline Vass & Dan Rigby & Katherine Payne, 2017. "The Role of Qualitative Research Methods in Discrete Choice Experiments," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 37(3), pages 298-313, April.
    9. 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.
    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. Chris Sampson’s journal round-up for 11th January 2021
      by Chris Sampson in The Academic Health Economists' Blog on 2021-01-11 12:00:06

    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. Vikas Soekhai & Esther W. Bekker-Grob & Alan R. Ellis & Caroline M. Vass, 2019. "Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: Past, Present and Future," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 37(2), pages 201-226, February.
    2. Swami, Megha & Scott, Anthony, 2021. "Impact of rural workforce incentives on access to GP services in underserved areas: Evidence from a natural experiment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 281(C).
    3. Holte, Jon Helgheim & Kjaer, Trine & Abelsen, Birgit & Olsen, Jan Abel, 2015. "The impact of pecuniary and non-pecuniary incentives for attracting young doctors to rural general practice," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 1-9.
    4. Scott, Anthony & Witt, Julia, 2020. "Loss aversion, reference dependence and diminishing sensitivity in choice experiments," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 37(C).
    5. Ou Yang & Peter Sivey & Andrea M. de Silva & Anthony Scott, 2020. "Parents' Demand for Sugar Sweetened Beverages for Their Pre‐School Children: Evidence from a Stated‐Preference Experiment," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 102(2), pages 480-504, March.
    6. Domino Determann & Dorte Gyrd-Hansen & G. Ardine de Wit & Esther W. de Bekker-Grob & Ewout W. Steyerberg & Mattijs S. Lambooij & Line Bjørnskov Pedersen, 2019. "Designing Unforced Choice Experiments to Inform Health Care Decision Making: Implications of Using Opt-Out, Neither, or Status Quo Alternatives in Discrete Choice Experiments," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 39(6), pages 681-692, August.
    7. Pedersen, Line Bjørnskov & Mørkbak, Morten Raun & Scarpa, Riccardo, 2020. "Handling resolvable uncertainty from incomplete scenarios in future doctors' job choice – Probabilities vs discrete choices," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 34(C).
    8. Sarah Costa & Dean A. Regier & Adam J. N. Raymakers & Samantha Pollard, 2021. "Genomic Testing for Relapsed and Refractory Lymphoid Cancers: Understanding Patient Values," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 14(2), pages 187-196, March.
    9. Magda Aguiar & Mark Harrison & Sarah Munro & Tiasha Burch & K. Julia Kaal & Marie Hudson & Nick Bansback & Tracey-Lea Laba, 2021. "Designing Discrete Choice Experiments Using a Patient-Oriented Approach," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 14(4), pages 389-397, July.
    10. Pedro Ramos & Hélio Alves & Paulo Guimarães & Maria A. Ferreira, 2017. "Junior doctors’ medical specialty and practice location choice: simulating policies to overcome regional inequalities," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 18(8), pages 1013-1030, November.
    11. Yong, Jongsay & Scott, Anthony & Gravelle, Hugh & Sivey, Peter & McGrail, Matthew, 2018. "Do rural incentives payments affect entries and exits of general practitioners?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 214(C), pages 197-205.
    12. Anthony Scott & Peter Sivey, 2022. "Motivation and competition in health care," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(8), pages 1695-1712, August.
    13. Jon Helgheim Holte & Peter Sivey & Birgit Abelsen & Jan Abel Olsen, 2016. "Modelling Nonlinearities and Reference Dependence in General Practitioners' Income Preferences," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 25(8), pages 1020-1038, August.
    14. Chavez, Daniel E. & Palma, Marco A. & Nayga, Rodolfo M. & Mjelde, James W., 2020. "Product availability in discrete choice experiments with private goods," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 36(C).
    15. Stephanie Knox & Rosalie Viney & Deborah Street & Marion Haas & Denzil Fiebig & Edith Weisberg & Deborah Bateson, 2012. "What’s Good and Bad About Contraceptive Products?," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 30(12), pages 1187-1202, December.
    16. Bunmi S Malau-Aduli & Amy M Smith & Louise Young & Tarun Sen Gupta & Richard Hays, 2020. "To stay or go? Unpacking the decision-making process and coping strategies of International Medical Graduates practising in rural, remote, and regional Queensland, Australia," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(6), pages 1-20, June.
    17. Denise Doiron & Hong Il Yoo, 2017. "Temporal Stability of Stated Preferences: The Case of Junior Nursing Jobs," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(6), pages 802-809, June.
    18. Pedersen, Line Bjørnskov & Allen, Thomas & Waldorff, Frans Boch & Andersen, Merethe Kirstine Kousgaard, 2020. "Does accreditation affect the job satisfaction of general practitioners? A combined panel data survey and cluster randomised field experiment," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 124(8), pages 849-855.
    19. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Rose, John M. & Oppewal, Harmen & Lancsar, Emily, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part I. Macro-scale analysis of literature and integrative synthesis of empirical evidence from applied economics, experimental psychology and neuroimag," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    20. Sydenham, Rikke Vognbjerg & Jarbøl, Dorte Ejg & Hansen, Malene Plejdrup & Justesen, Ulrik Stenz & Watson, Verity & Pedersen, Line Bjørnskov, 2022. "Prescribing antibiotics: Factors driving decision-making in general practice. A discrete choice experiment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 305(C).

    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:hecrev:v:10:y:2020:i:1:d:10.1186_s13561-020-00295-8. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: . General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com/economics/journal/13561 .

    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/economics/journal/13561 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.