Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Patient Preferences for Pharmacy Services: A Systematic Review of Studies Based on Discrete Choice Experiments

  • Systematic Review
  • Published:
The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background and Objective

In recent years, the mission of pharmacists has evolved and the model of the caregiver–patient relationship has been challenged by a new patient-centered approach. A challenge to providing personalized care is the assessment of patient preferences. We aimed to systematically identify published discrete choice experiments related to patient preferences for pharmacy services and to assess the quality of the selected articles.

Methods

A systematic review of the literature was conducted in two databases (PubMed and Embase, until March 2023) according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) recommendations. The quality of the selected articles was assessed according to the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research conjoint analysis checklist.

Results

Among the 421 articles identified, 16 published studies were included and analyzed. They were mostly published in pharmaceutical (n = 6), economic (n = 4), and public health (n = 4) journals. Only two articles concerned the field of hospital pharmacy. Only five presented the specific pharmacy service studied: filling of prescriptions, management of symptoms, treatment delivery, and components of pharmacist counseling. Five articles focused on pharmacy services related to a specific disease. None fully fulfilled the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research checklist, only partially fulfilled.

Conclusions

According to the identified studies, cost, time, logistics (organizational criteria), and pharmacists’ courtesy and skills were consistently cited as factors influencing patient preferences for pharmacy services. The disclosure of patient preferences is a complex and under-researched topic, especially in the field of pharmacy, but interest is growing. As the mission of pharmacists evolves to bring them closer to patients, the better understanding of patient preferences in pharmacy services will allow for better targeting and better integration of patient profiles in patient management.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Epstein R, Street R. The values and value of patient-centered care. Ann Fam Med. 2011;9:100–3. https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.1239.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Van der Heide I, Snoeijs S, Quattrini S, Struckmann V, Hujala A, Schellevis F. Patient-centeredness of integrated care programs for people with multimorbidity: results from the European ICARE4EU project. Health Policy. 2018;122:36–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2017.10.005.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Mossialos E, Courtin E, Naci H, Benrimoj S, Bouvy M, Farris K. From, “retailers” to health care providers: Transforming the role of community pharmacists in chronic disease management. Health Policy. 2015;119:628–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2015.02.007.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Barnett K, Mercer S, Norbury M, Watt G, Wyke S, Guthrie B. Epidemiology of multimorbidity and implications for health care, research, and medical education: A cross-sectional study. Lancet. 2012;380:37–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60240-2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Coste J, Valderas J, Carcaillon-Bentata L. Estimating and characterizing the burden of multimorbidity in the community: a comprehensive multistep analysis of two large nationwide representative surveys in France. PLoS Med. 2021;18: e1003584. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1003584.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Moullin JC, Sabater-Hernandez D, Fernandez-Llimos F, Benrimoj S. Defining professional pharmacy services in community pharmacy. Res Soc Adm Pharm. 2013;9:989–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sapharm.2013.02.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Hanlon JT, Lindblad CI, Gray S. Can clinical pharmacy services have a positive impact on drug-related problems and health outcomes in community-based older adults? Am J Geriatr Pharmacother. 2004;2:3–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1543-5946(04)90002-5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Tan ECK, Elliott RA, George J. Pharmacist services provided in general practice clinics: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Res Soc Admin Pharm. 2014;10:608–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sapharm.2013.08.006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. NHS Foundation Trust. Pharmacy services. https://www.humber.nhs.uk/Services/pharmacy-services.htm. Accessed 4 Oct 2023.

  10. de Grégori J, Pistre P, Boutet M, Porcher L, Devaux M, Pernot C, et al. Clinical and economic impact of pharmacist interventions in an ambulatory hematology-oncology department. J Oncol Pharm Pract. 2020;26:1172–9. https://doi.org/10.1177/1078155220915763.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Zerbit J, Kroemer M, Fuchs B, Detroit M, Decroocq J, Vignon M, et al. Pharmaceutical cancer care for haematology patients on oral anticancer drugs: findings from an economic, clinical and organisational analysis. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl). 2022;31: e13753. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecc.13753.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Baudouin A, Herledan C, Poletto N, Guillemin M-D, Maison O, Garreau R, et al. Economic impact of clinical pharmaceutical activities in hospital wards: a systematic review. Res Soc Adm Pharm. 2021;17:497–505. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sapharm.2020.07.016.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Petit-Jean E, Correard F, Maillan G, Crozals F, Bertrand B, Regnier V. Pharmaceutical consultations in oncology: French Society for Oncology Pharmacy (Société Francaise de Pharmacie Oncologique—SFPO) guidelines. Eur J Oncol Pharm. 2019;2:11. https://doi.org/10.1097/OP9.0000000000000011.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Roustit M, Chaumais M-C, Chapuis C, Gairard-Dory A, Hadjadj C, Chanoine S. Evaluation of a collaborative care program for pulmonary hypertension patients: a multicenter randomized trial. Int J Clin Pharm. 2020;42:1128–38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11096-020-01047-8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Belaiche S, Romanet T, Bell R, Calop J, Allenet B, Zaoui P. Pharmaceutical care in chronic kidney disease: experience at Grenoble University Hospital from 2006 to 2010. J Nephrol. 2012;25:558–65. https://doi.org/10.5301/jn.5000033.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Ramello M, Audisio RA. The value of patient centred care in oncology. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2021;47:492–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2020.06.010.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Sebai J, Yatim F. Patient-centered care model and new public management: confluence and paradox. Sante Publique. 2018;30:517–26. https://doi.org/10.3917/spub.185.0517.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Lancaster KJ. A new approach to consumer theory. J Political Econ. 1966;74:132–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Lancsar E, Louviere J. Conducting discrete choice experiments to inform healthcare decision making: a user’s guide. Pharmacoeconomics. 2008;26:661–77. https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-200826080-00004.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Johnson FR, Lancsar E, Marshall DA, Kilambi V, Muhlbacher A, Regier DA. Constructing experimental designs for discrete-choice experiments: report of the ISPOR Conjoint Analysis Experimental Design Good Research Practices Task Force. Value Health. 2013;16:3–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2012.08.2223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Page MJ. PRISMA guidelines for systematic review. https://www.equator-network.org/reporting-guidelines/prisma/. Accessed 4 Oct 2023.

  22. Bridges JFP, Hauber AB, Marshall DA, Lloyd A, Prosser LA, Regier DA. Conjoint analysis applications in health: a checklist: a report of the ISPOR Good Research Practices for Conjoint Analysis Task Force. Value Health. 2011;14:403–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2010.11.013.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Hauber AB, González JM, Groothuis-Oudshoorn CGM, Prior T, Marshall DA, Cunningham C. Statistical methods for the analysis of discrete choice experiments: a report of the ISPOR Conjoint Analysis Good Research Practices Task Force. Value Health. 2016;19:300–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2016.04.004.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Naik-Panvelkar P, Armour C, Rose J, Saini B. Patient preferences for community pharmacy asthma services: a discrete choice experiment. Pharmacoeconomics. 2012;30:961–76. https://doi.org/10.2165/11594350-000000000-00000.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Naik-Panvelkar P, Armour C, Rose J, Saini B. Patients’ value of asthma services in Australian pharmacies: the way ahead for asthma care. J Asthma. 2012;49:310–6. https://doi.org/10.3109/02770903.2012.658130.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Feehan M, Walsh M, Godin J, Sundwall D, Munger MA. Patient preferences for healthcare delivery through community pharmacy settings in the USA: a discrete choice study. J Clin Pharm Ther. 2017;42:738–49. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpt.12574.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Porteous T, Ryan M, Bond C, Hannaford P. Preferences for self-care or professional advice for minor illness: a discrete choice experiment. Br J Gen Pract. 2006;56:911–7.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Tinelli M, Ryan M, Bond C. Patients’ preferences for an increased pharmacist role in the management of drug therapy. Int J Pharm Pract. 2010;17:275–82. https://doi.org/10.1211/ijpp.17.05.0004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Gerard K, Tinelli M, Latter S, Blenkinsopp A, Smith A. Valuing the extended role of prescribing pharmacist in general practice: results from a discrete choice experiment. Value Health. 2012;15:699–707. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2012.02.006.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Rennie L, Porteous T, Ryan M. Preferences for managing symptoms of differing severity: a discrete choice experiment. Value Health. 2012;15:1069–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2012.06.013.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Whitty JA, Kendall E, Sav A, Kelly F, McMillan SS, King MA. Preferences for the delivery of community pharmacy services to help manage chronic conditions. Res Soc Adm Pharm. 2015;11:197–215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sapharm.2014.06.007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Hagemi A, Plumpton C, Hughes DA. Renal transplant patients’ preference for the supply and delivery of immunosuppressants in Wales: a discrete choice experiment. BMC Nephrol. 2017;18:305. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12882-017-0720-5.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Patterson JA, Holdford DA, Harpe SE. Patient preferences for objective quality metrics during community pharmacy selection: a discrete choice experiment. Res Soc Adm Pharm. 2019;15:641–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sapharm.2018.08.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Raghunandan R, Howard K, Marra CA, Tordoff J, Smith A. Identifying New Zealand public preferences for pharmacist prescribers in primary care: a discrete choice experiment. Patient. 2022;15:77–92. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-021-00529-9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Chua GN, Bond C, Porteous T, Ryan M. Will the public engage with new pharmacy roles? Assessing future uptake of a community pharmacy health check using a discrete choice experiment. Patient. 2022;15:473–83. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-021-00566-4.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Kawaguchi T, Azuma K, Yamaguchi T, Iwase S, Matsunaga T, Yamada K. Preferences for pharmacist counselling in patients with breast cancer: a discrete choice experiment. Biol Pharm Bull. 2014;37:1795–802. https://doi.org/10.1248/bpb.b14-00452.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Van de Pol JM, Heringa M, Koster E, Bouvy M. Preferences of patients regarding community pharmacy services: a discrete choice experiment. Health Policy. 2021;125:1415–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2021.08.009.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Presley B, Groot W, Widjanarko D, Pavlova M. Preferences for pharmacist services to enhance medication management among people with diabetes in Indonesia: a discrete choice experiment. Patient Educ Couns. 2021;104:1745–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2020.12.005.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Hu Q, Hu H, Hu M, Yang Y, Wu Z, Zhou N. Patient preferences for specialty pharmacy services: a stated preference discrete-choice experiment in China. Front Public Health. 2020;8: 597389. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2020.597389.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Presley B, Groot W, Pavlova M. Pharmacists’ preferences for the provision of services to improve medication adherence among patients with diabetes in Indonesia: results of a discrete choice experiment. Health Soc Care Community. 2022;30:161–74. https://doi.org/10.1111/hsc.13423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Murry LT, Brahmendra V, Chapman C, Wittry MJ, Kennelty KA, Nayakankuppam D. Patient preferences and willingness-to-pay for community pharmacy-led Medicare Part D consultation services: a discrete choice experiment. Res Soc Adm Pharm. 2023;19:764–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sapharm.2023.01.008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Porter ME. Value-based health care delivery. Ann Surg. 2008;248:503–9. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0b013e31818a43af.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Raghunandan R, Howard K, Marra CA, Tordoff J, Smith A. Identifying community pharmacist preferences for prescribing services in primary care in New Zealand: a discrete choice experiment. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2021;19:14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40258-020-00615-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Naik-Panvelkar P, Armour C, Saini B. Discrete choice experiments in pharmacy: a review of the literature: discrete choice experiments in pharmacy. Int J Pharm. 2013;21:3–19. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijpp.12002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Vass C. Discrete choice experiments of pharmacy services: a systematic review. Int J Clin Pharm. 2016;38(3):620–30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11096-015-0221-1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Payne K, Elliott R. Using discrete choice experiments to value preferences for pharmacy services. Int J Pharm Pract. 2010;13:9–20. https://doi.org/10.1211/0022357055245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. CHU Besançon, Pôle Pharmacie, F-25030, Besançon Cedex, France

    Margaux Riboulet

  2. Université de Franche-Comté, CHU Besançon, INSERM, EFS BFC, UMR1098, RIGHT, Pôle Pharmacie, F-25030, Besançon Cedex, France

    Anne-Laure Clairet & Virginie Nerich

  3. Qualees, Paris, France

    Mohamed Bennani

Authors
  1. Margaux Riboulet
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Anne-Laure Clairet
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mohamed Bennani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Virginie Nerich
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Virginie Nerich.

Ethics declarations

Funding

No funding was received for the preparation of this article.

Conflict of Interest

Margaux Riboulet, Anne-Laure Clairet, Mohamed Bennani, and Virginie Nerich have no conflicts of interest that are directly relevant to the content of this article.

Ethics Approval

Not applicable.

Consent to Participate

All participants were provided with participant information when they entered the online survey.

Consent for Publication

All participants consented to publication of the results of this study.

Data Availability

Not applicable.

Code Availability

Not applicable.

Author Contributions

All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection, and analysis were performed by ALC, MR, and VN. The first draft of the manuscript was written by MR and ALC and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript. Conceptualization: VN; methodology: MB, VN; formal analysis and investigation: ALC, MR; writing—original draft preparation: ALC, MR; writing—review and editing: MB, VN; supervision: VN.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 18 KB)

Supplementary file2 (XLSX 30 KB)

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Riboulet, M., Clairet, AL., Bennani, M. et al. Patient Preferences for Pharmacy Services: A Systematic Review of Studies Based on Discrete Choice Experiments. Patient 17, 13–24 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-023-00652-9

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-023-00652-9

Search

Navigation