IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/patien/v16y2023i6d10.1007_s40271-023-00639-6.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Gauging Incentive Values and Expectations (G.I.V.E.) among Blood Donors for Nonmonetary Incentives: Developing a Preference Elicitation Instrument through Qualitative Approaches in Shandong, China

Author

Listed:
  • Yu Wang

    (Shandong University
    NHC Key Lab of Health Economics and Policy Research (Shandong University)
    Shandong University)

  • Peicong Zhai

    (Blood Center of Shandong Province)

  • Yue Zhang

    (Shandong University
    NHC Key Lab of Health Economics and Policy Research (Shandong University)
    Shandong University)

  • Shan Jiang

    (Macquarie University)

  • Gang Chen

    (Monash University)

  • Shunping Li

    (Shandong University
    NHC Key Lab of Health Economics and Policy Research (Shandong University)
    Shandong University)

Abstract

Introduction Blood donation rates remain suboptimal in China necessitating the reform of the current nonmonetary incentive system to motivate donors. This study aims to identify relevant attributes and levels for nonmonetary incentives in repeated blood donation and provide insights for the development of preference elicitation instruments. Methods A qualitative research process was employed, including a literature review, in-depth interviews, attribute ranking, focus group discussions, and cognitive interviews, to identify potential nonmonetary incentives for blood donation. The identified attributes were then incorporated into a discrete choice experiment (DCE) study design. The comprehensibility and acceptability of the DCE questionnaire were assessed through cognitive interviews and a pilot study. Results Five nonmonetary incentive attributes were identified, including health examination, designated blood recipient, honor for donation, travel time, and gifts. The designated recipient of blood donation emerged as the most important motivator for future donations among the participants. The cognitive interviews and pilot study provided valuable feedback for refining the DCE questionnaire and ensuring its reliability. Conclusion This study contributes to the understanding of nonmonetary incentives for blood donation and highlights the importance of designated blood recipients, health examination, honor for donation, travel time, and gifts as potential motivators. Moreover, it emphasizes the value of employing cognitive interviews and pilot studies in the development and refinement of DCE questionnaires, ultimately enhancing the reliability and validity of preference elicitation instruments.

Suggested Citation

  • Yu Wang & Peicong Zhai & Yue Zhang & Shan Jiang & Gang Chen & Shunping Li, 2023. "Gauging Incentive Values and Expectations (G.I.V.E.) among Blood Donors for Nonmonetary Incentives: Developing a Preference Elicitation Instrument through Qualitative Approaches in Shandong, China," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 16(6), pages 593-606, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:patien:v:16:y:2023:i:6:d:10.1007_s40271-023-00639-6
    DOI: 10.1007/s40271-023-00639-6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40271-023-00639-6
    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/s40271-023-00639-6?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. Jiang, Shan & Gu, Yuanyuan & Yang, Fan & Wu, Tao & Wang, Hui & Cutler, Henry & Zhang, Lufa, 2020. "Tertiary hospitals or community clinics? An enquiry into the factors affecting patients' choice for healthcare facilities in urban China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 63(C).
    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. Fang Wu & Wei Chen & Lingling Lin & Xu Ren & Yingna Qu, 2022. "The Balanced Allocation of Medical and Health Resources in Urban Areas of China from the Perspective of Sustainable Development: A Case Study of Nanjing," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(11), pages 1-28, May.
    2. Chen, Qiulin & Xu, Duo & Fu, Hongqiao & Yip, Winnie, 2022. "Distance effects and home bias in patient choice on the Internet: Evidence from an online healthcare platform in China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 72(C).
    3. Fangye Du & Jiaoe Wang & Haitao Jin, 2021. "Whether Public Hospital Reform Affects the Hospital Choices of Patients in Urban Areas: New Evidence from Smart Card Data," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(15), pages 1-14, July.
    4. Meng Tian & Lei Yuan & Renzhong Guo & Yongsheng Wu & Xiaojian Liu, 2022. "Evaluations of Spatial Accessibility and Equity of Multi-Tiered Medical System: A Case Study of Shenzhen, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(5), pages 1-18, March.
    5. Li, Bo & Chen, Juan & Howard, Natasha, 2023. "Community nursing delivery in urban China: A social power perspective," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 326(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:patien:v:16:y:2023:i:6:d:10.1007_s40271-023-00639-6. 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.