Modeling Organizational Justice Improvements in a Pediatric Health Service

A Discrete-Choice Conjoint Experiment
  • Charles E. Cunningham
  • Linda Kostrzewa
  • Heather Rimas
  • Yvonne Chen
  • Ken Deal
  • Susan Blatz
  • Alida Bowman
  • Don H. Buchanan
  • Randy Calvert
  • Barbara Jennings
Original Research Article

Abstract

Background

Patients value health service teams that function effectively. Organizational justice is linked to the performance, health, and emotional adjustment of the members of these teams.

Objectives

We used a discrete-choice conjoint experiment to study the organizational justice improvement preferences of pediatric health service providers.

Methods

Using themes from a focus group with 22 staff, we composed 14 four-level organizational justice improvement attributes. A sample of 652 staff (76 % return) completed 30 choice tasks, each presenting three hospitals defined by experimentally varying the attribute levels.

Results

Latent class analysis yielded three segments. Procedural justice attributes were more important to the Decision Sensitive segment, 50.6 % of the sample. They preferred to contribute to and understand how all decisions were made and expected management to act promptly on more staff suggestions. Interactional justice attributes were more important to the Conduct Sensitive segment (38.5 %). A universal code of respectful conduct, consequences encouraging respectful interaction, and management’s response when staff disagreed with them were more important to this segment. Distributive justice attributes were more important to the Benefit Sensitive segment, 10.9 % of the sample. Simulations predicted that, while Decision Sensitive (74.9 %) participants preferred procedural justice improvements, Conduct (74.6 %) and Benefit Sensitive (50.3 %) participants preferred interactional justice improvements. Overall, 97.4 % of participants would prefer an approach combining procedural and interactional justice improvements.

Conclusions

Efforts to create the health service environments that patients value need to be comprehensive enough to address the preferences of segments of staff who are sensitive to different dimensions of organizational justice.

References

  1. 1.
    Cunningham CE, Deal K, Rimas H, et al. Using conjoint analysis to model the preferences of different patient segments for attributes of patient-centered care. Patient. 2008;1(4):317–30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cohen-Charash Y, Spector PE. The role of justice in organizations: a meta-analysis. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 2001;86(2):278–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    De Vogli R, Ferrie JE, Chandola T, et al. Unfairness and health: evidence from the Whitehall II Study. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2007;61(6):513–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Head J, Kivimaki M, Siegrist J, et al. Effort-reward imbalance and relational injustice at work predict sickness absence: the Whitehall II study. J Psychosom Res. 2007;63(4):433–40.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cropanzano R. The impact of organizational justice on occupational health. In: Quick JC, Tetrick LE, editors. Handbook of occupational health psychology. 2nd ed. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 2011. p. 205–19.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kouvonen A, Vahtera J, Elovainio M, et al. Organisational justice and smoking: the Finnish Public Sector Study. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2007;61(5):427–33.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kouvonen A, Kivimaki M, Elovainio M, et al. Low organisational justice and heavy drinking: a prospective cohort study. Occup Environ Med. 2008;65(1):44–50.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Elovainio M, Kivimaki M, Vahtera J, et al. Sleeping problems and health behaviors as mediators between organizational justice and health. Health Psychol. 2003;22(3):287–93.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Moliner C, Martinez-Tur V, Ramos J, et al. Linking organizational justice to burnout: are men and women different? Psychol Rep. 2005;96(3):805–16.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kivimaki M, Elovainio M, Vahtera J, et al. Association between organizational inequity and incidence of psychiatric disorders in female employees. Psychol Med. 2003;33(2):319–26.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Elovainio M, Kivimaki M, Linna A, et al. Does organisational justice protect from sickness absence following a major life event? A Finnish public sector study. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2010;64(5):470–2.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lindfors PM, Heponiemi T, Meretoja OA, et al. Mitigating on-call symptoms through organizational justice and job control: a cross-sectional study among Finnish anesthesiologists. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2009;53(9):1138–44.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Virtanen M, Oksanen T, Kawachi I, et al. Organizational justice in primary-care health centers and glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes. Med Care. 2012;50(10):831–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Weiner BJ, Hobgood C, Lewis MA. The meaning of justice in safety incident reporting. Soc Sci Med. 2007;66(2):403–13.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Squires M, Tourangeau A, Spence Laschinger HK, et al. The link between leadership and safety outcomes in hospitals. J Nurs Manag. 2010;18(8):914–25.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Greenberg J. Losing sleep over organizational injustice: attenuating insomniac reactions to underpayment inequity with supervisory training in interactional justice. J Appl Psychol. 2006;91(1):58–69.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Schminke M, Ambrose M, Cropanzano R. The effect of organizational structure on perceptions of procedural fairness. J Appl Psychol. 2000;85(2):294–304.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Leung K. How generalizable are justice effects across cultures? In: Greenberg J, Colquitt J, editors. Handbook of organizational justice. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2005. p. 555–88.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lang J, Bliese PD, Lang JW, et al. Work gets unfair for the depressed: cross-lagged relations between organizational justice perceptions and depressive symptoms. J Appl Psychol. 2011;96(3):602–18.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Anderson WD, Patterson ML. Effects of social value orientations on fairness judgments. J Soc Psychol. 2008;148(2):223–46.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Liao H, Rupp DE. The impact of justice climate and justice orientation on work outcomes: a cross-level multifoci framework. J Appl Psychol. 2005;90(2):242–56.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    De Cremer D, Cornelis I, Van Hiel A. To whom does voice in groups matter? Effects of voice on affect and procedural fairness judgments as a function of social dominance orientation. J Soc Psychol. 2008;148(1):61–76.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Colquitt J. Does the justice of the one interact with the justice of the many? Reactions to procedural justice in teams. J Appl Psychol. 2004;89(4):633–46.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ryan M, Gerard K, Amaya-Amaya M. Using discrete choice experiments to value health and health care. Dordrecht: Springer; 2007.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Marshall D, Bridges JF, Hauber B, et al. Conjoint analysis applications in health—how are studies being designed and reported?: an update on current practice in the published literature between 2005 and 2008. Patient. 2010;3(4):249–56.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bridges JFP, Kinter ET, Kidane L, et al. Things are looking up since we started listening to patients: trends in the application of conjoint analysis in health 1982–2007. Patient. 2008;1(4):273–83.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Leventhal GS. What should be done with equity theory? new approaches to the study of fairness in social relationships. In: Gergen KJ, Greenberg MS, Wills RH, editors. Social exchange: advances in theory and research. New York: Plenum; 1976. p. 27–55.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Van den Bos K. What is responsible for the fair process effect? In: Greenberg J, Colquitt J, editors. Handbook of organizational justice. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2005. p. 273–300.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Bridges JFP, Hauber AB, Marshall D, et al. Conjoint analysis applications in health—a checklist: a report of the ISPOR good research practices for conjoint analysis task force. Value Health. 2011;14(4):403–13.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Coast J. The appropriate uses of qualitative methods in health economics. Health Econ. 1999;8(4):345–53.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Verlegh PWJ, Schifferstein HNJ, Wittink DR. Range and number-of-levels effects in derived and stated measures of attribute importance. Mark Lett. 2002;13(1):41–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Patterson M, Chrzan K, editors. Partial profile discrete choice: what’s the optimal number of attributes? 10th Sawtooth Software Conference Proceedings; April 15–17, 2003. Sequim: Sawtooth Software, Inc.; 2003.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Rolfe J, Bennett J. The impact of offering two versus three alternatives in choice modeling experiments. Ecol Econ. 2009;68(4):1140–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Bridges JFP, Buttorff C, Groothuis-Oudshoorn K. Estimating patients’ preferences for medical devices: Does the number of profile in choice experiments matter? No. W17482. National Bureau of Economic Research 2011 Oct.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Orme BK. SSI Web v7.0 software for web interviewing and conjoint analysis. Sequim: Sawtooth Software, Inc.; 2011.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Allenby GM, Arora N, Gintner JL. Incorporating prior knowledge into the analysis of conjoint studies. J Mark Res. 1995;32(2):152–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Lenk PJ, DeSarbo WS, Green PE, et al. Hierarchical Bayes conjoint analysis: recovery of partworth heterogeneity from reduced experimental designs. Mark Sci. 1996;15(2):173–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Sawtooth Software. The CBC/HB system for hierarchical Bayes estimation version 4.0 technical paper [Sawtooth Software Technical Paper Series 2004:1–31]. Sequim: Sawtooth Software, Inc.; 2004.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Orme BK. Getting started with conjoint analysis: strategies for product design and pricing research. 2nd ed. Madison: Research Publishers; 2009.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Johnson FR, Mansfield C. Survey-design and analytical strategies for better healthcare stated-choice studies. Patient. 2008;1(4):299–307.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Sawtooth Software. The CBC latent class technical paper (Version 4). [Sawtooth Software Technical Paper Series 2004:1–20]. Sequim: Sawtooth Software, Inc.; 2004.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Ramaswamy V, Cohen SH. Latent class models for conjoint analysis. In: Gustafsson A, Herrmann A, Huber F, editors. Conjoint measurement methods and applications. 4th ed. New York: Springer; 2007. p. 295–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Vermunt JK, Magidson J. Latent class analysis. In: Lewis-Beck M, Bryman A, Liao TF, editors. The Sage Encyclopaedia of social sciences research methods. Thousand Oakes: Sage; 2004. p. 549–53.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Lanza, ST, Rhoades BL. Latent class analysis: an alternative perspective on subgroup analysis in prevention and treatment. Prev Sci. 2011. doi:10.1007/s11121-011-0201-1.
  45. 45.
    Vermunt JK, Magidson J. Latent class cluster analysis. In: Hagenaars JA, McCutcheon AL, editors. Applied latent class analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2002. p 89–106.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Huber J, Orme BK, Miller R. Dealing with product similarity in conjoint simulations. In: Gustafsson A, Herrmann A, Huber F, editors. Conjoint measurement: methods and applications. 4th ed. New York: Springer; 2007. p. 347–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Colquitt J, Shaw J. How should organizational justice be measured? In: Greenberg J, Colquitt J, editors. Handbook of organizational justice. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2005. p. 113–54.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Shah AK, Oppenheimer DM. Heuristics made easy: an effort-reduction framework. Psychol Bull. 2008;134(2):207–22.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Lind EA, Kray L, Thompson L. Primacy effects in justice judgments: testing predictions from fairness heuristic theory. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 2001;85(2):189–210.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Schwab AP. Putting cognitive psychology to work: improving decision-making in the medical encounter. Soc Sci Med. 2008;67(11):1861–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Tourangeau R, Yan T. Sensitive questions in surveys. Psychol Bull. 2007;133(5):859–83.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Cohen-Charash Y, Mueller JS. Does perceived unfairness exacerbate or mitigate interpersonal counterproductive work behaviors related to envy? J Appl Psychol. 2007;92(3):666–80.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Caruso EM, Rahnev DA, Banaji MR. Using conjoint analysis to detect discrimination: revealing covert preferences from overt choices. Soc Cogn. 2009;27(1):128–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Phillips KA, Johnson FR, Maddala T. Measuring what people value: a comparison of “attitude” and “preference” surveys. Health Serv Res. 2002;37(6):1659–79.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Woodward CA, Shannon HS, Cunningham CE, et al. The impact of re-engineering and other cost reduction strategies on the staff of a large teaching hospital: a longitudinal study. Med Care. 1999;37(6):556–69.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Shapiro D, Brett J. What is the role of control in organizational justice? In: Greenberg J, Colquitt J, editors. Handbook of organizational justice. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2005. p. 155–78.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Cunningham CE, Woodward CA, Shannon HS, et al. Readiness for organizational change: a longitudinal study of workplace, psychological and behavioural correlates. J Occup Organ Psychol. 2002;75(4):377–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Elovainio M, van den Bos K, Linna A, et al. Combined effects of uncertainty and organizational justice on employee health: testing the uncertainty management model of fairness judgments among Finnish public sector employees. Soc Sci Med. 2005;61(12):2501–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    De Cremer D, van Knippenberg D. How do leaders promote cooperation? The effects of charisma and procedural fairness. J Appl Psychol. 2002;87(5):858–66.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Morello RT, Lowthian JA, Barker AL, et al. Strategies for improving patient safety culture in hospitals: a systematic review. BMJ Qual Saf. Epub 31 Jul 2012.Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Zimmerman R, Ip I, Daniels C, et al. An evaluation of patient safety leadership walkarounds. Healthc Q. 2008;11(3 spec no.):16–20.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Masterson SS, Lewis K, Goldman BM, et al. Integrating justice and social exchange: the differing effects of fair procedures and treatment on work relationships. Acad Manag J. 2000;43:738–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Sexton JB, Thomas EJ, Helmreich RL. Error, stress, and teamwork in medicine and aviation: cross sectional surveys. BMJ. 2000;320(7237):745–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Sutcliffe KM, Lewton E, Rosenthal MM. Communication failures: an insidious contributor to medical mishaps. Acad Med. 2004;79(2):186–94.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Kivimaki M, Elovainio M, Vahtera J. Workplace bullying and sickness absence in hospital staff. Occup Environ Med. 2000;57(10):656–60.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Hauser JR, Toubia O, Evgeniou T, et al. Disjunctions of conjunctions, cognitive simplicity, and consideration sets. J Market Res. 2010;47(3):485–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Louviere JJ, Hensher DA, Swait JD. Conjoint preference elicitation methods in the broader context of random utility theory preference elicitation methods. In: Gustafsson A, Herrmann A, Huber F, editors. Conjoint measurement: methods and applications. 4th ed. New York: Springer; 2007. p. 167–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Brazil K, Wakefield DB, Cloutier MM, et al. Organizational culture predicts job satisfaction and perceived clinical effectiveness in pediatric primary care practices. Health Care Manage Rev. 2010;35(4):365–71.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Charles E. Cunningham
    • 1
    • 2
  • Linda Kostrzewa
    • 2
  • Heather Rimas
    • 1
  • Yvonne Chen
    • 1
  • Ken Deal
    • 1
  • Susan Blatz
    • 2
  • Alida Bowman
    • 2
  • Don H. Buchanan
    • 2
  • Randy Calvert
    • 2
  • Barbara Jennings
    • 2
  1. 1.McMaster UniversityHamiltonCanada
  2. 2.McMaster Children’s HospitalHamiltonCanada

Personalised recommendations