Advertisement

Video or In-Clinic Consultation? Selection of Attributes as Preparation for a Discrete Choice Experiment Among Key Stakeholders

  • Irit ChudnerEmail author
  • Margalit Goldfracht
  • Hadass Goldblatt
  • Anat Drach-Zahavy
  • Khaled Karkabi
Original Research Article

Abstract

Introduction

Video consultations (VCs) provide increased accessibility of primary care to remote areas and overall improved care for chronic patients. They also contribute to higher patient satisfaction and improved resource management. Despite these benefits, VC integration into the health system is complex and slow. Understanding the VC-related preferences of three key stakeholders—patients, primary care physicians (PCPs) and policy makers (PMs)—is crucial for achieving optimal implementation.

Objective

The aim of this study was to select relevant attributes and levels for a discrete choice experiment (DCE) of stakeholders’ choice—VC or traditional in-clinic consultation (I-CC) in primary care.

Methods

Ten semi-structured focus group interviews and 24 semi-structured individual interviews were conducted. Data analysis was performed inductively, using a thematic content analysis method. An attribute-ranking exercise was then conducted based on the results gleaned from the interviews.

Results

The most important attributes when choosing either VC or I-CC, for both patients and PMs, were: (1) time to next available appointment; (2) time in line before consultation; (3) relationship to PCP; and (4) quality of consultation. For PCPs, the most important attributes were: (1) time in line before consultation; (2) patient’s self-management ability; (3) consultation purpose; (4) quality of consultation.

Conclusions

This qualitative study identified attributes and levels for a DCE quantitative stage among three key stakeholder groups. It adds to the literature of examples of developing DCE attributes, and to literature about the stakeholder benefits in the area of telemedicine in healthcare.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank all of the study participants, i.e. patients, PCPs, executive managers and PMs.

Author Contributions

IC, MG, HG, ADZ and KK contributed to the study design; IC, HG, ADZ and KK conducted the analysis and interpretation of the results and reviewed the manuscript; and IC and HG contributed to the data collection, facilitated the focus groups and interviewed PMs.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Funding

This study was part of a larger study entitled “Family Medicine—Quo Vadis?”, funded by The Israel National Institute for Health Policy Research.

Ethical Approval

All procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical approval for the study granted by the Haifa University Ethics Committee.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all patients and primary care practitioners in focus groups prior to being included in the study.

Conflict of interest

Irit Chudner, Hadass Goldblatt, Anat Drach-Zahavy and Khaled Karkabi declare no conflicts of interest relevant to the contents of this article.

Supplementary material

40271_2018_318_MOESM1_ESM.docx (27 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 26 kb)
40271_2018_318_MOESM2_ESM.doc (70 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (DOC 70 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Verhoeven F, Tanja-Dijkstra K, Nijland N, Eysenbach G, van Gemert-Pijnen L. Asynchronous and synchronous teleconsultation for diabetes care: a systematic literature review. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2010;4:666–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gonçalves MR, Umpierre RN, D’Avila OP, Katz N, Mengue SS, Siqueira AC, et al. Expanding primary care access: a telehealth success story. Ann Fam Med. 2017;15:383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Greenhalgh T, Vijayaraghavan S, Wherton J, Shaw S, Byrne E, Campbell-Richards D, et al. Virtual online consultations: advantages and limitations (VOCAL) study. BMJ Open. 2016;6:1–13.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kaambwa B, Ratcliffe J, Shulver W, Killington M, Taylor A, Crotty M, et al. Investigating the preferences of older people for telehealth as a new model of health care service delivery: a discrete choice experiment. J Telemed Telecare. 2017;23:301–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kern J. Evaluation of teleconsultation systems. Int J Med Inf. 2006;75:330–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kvedar J, Coye MJ, Everett W. Connected health: a review of technologies and strategies to improve patient care with telemedicine and telehealth. Health Aff. 2014;33:194–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Isetta V, Lugo V, León C, Nuñez MD, Sánchez M, Navajas D, et al. Clinical follow-up based on teleconsultation: users’ opinion. Eur Respir J. 2013;42:3505.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Palen TE, Price D, Shetterly S, Wallace KB. Comparing virtual consults to traditional consults using an electronic health record: an observational case–control study. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2012;12:65–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Von Wangenheim A, de Souza Nobre LF, Tognoli H, Nassar SM, Ho K. User satisfaction with asynchronous telemedicine: a study of users of Santa Catarina’s system of telemedicine and telehealth. Telemed e-Health. 2012;18:339–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Olayiwola JN, Anderson D, Jepeal N, Aseltine R, Pickett C, Yan J, et al. Electronic consultations to improve the primary care-specialty care interface for cardiology in the medically underserved: a cluster-randomized controlled trial. Ann Fam Med. 2016;14:133–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Oliveira TC, Barlow J, Bayer S. The association between general practitioner participation in joint teleconsultations and rates of referral: a discrete choice experiment. BMC Fam Pract. 2015;16:50–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Saleh S, Larsen JP, Bergsåker-Aspøy J, Grundt H. Re-admissions to hospital and patient satisfaction among patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease after telemedicine video consultation-a retrospective pilot study. Multidiscip Resp Med. 2014;9:6–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kidholm K, Ekeland AG, Jensen LK, Rasmussen J, Pedersen CD, Bowes A, et al. A model for assessment of telemedicine applications: mast. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2012;28:44–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Pouloudi N, Currie W, Whitley EA. Entangled stakeholder roles and perceptions in health information systems: a longitudinal study of the UK NHS N3 network. J Assoc Inf Syst. 2016;17:107–61.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jiwa M, Asteljoki S, Pagey G. What factors will impact on the adoption of digital technology to access general practitioners in Australia? Qual Prim Care. 2016;21:261–5.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Freeman RE. Strategic management: a stakeholder approach. Cambridge: Ballinger Publishing; 1984.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Marstein E. The influence of stakeholder groups on organizational decision-making in public hospitals. Norwegian School of Management, Series of Dissertations, 2002;2.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Currie WL. Translating health IT policy into practice in the UK NHS. Scand J Inf Syst. 2014;26:3–26.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kamal M, Weerakkody V, Irani Z. Analyzing the role of stakeholders in the adoption of technology integration solutions in UK local government: an exploratory study. Gov Inf Q. 2011;28:200–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Marshall A. Designing telemedicine apps that health commissioners will adopt. Nov 2013. In: Open innovations association (FRUCT), 2013, 14th conference of IEEE, pp. 63–68.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Qureshi AA, Brandling-Bennett HA, Wittenberg E, Chen SC, Sober AJ, Kvedar JC. Willingness-to-pay stated preferences for telemedicine versus in-person visits in patients with a history of psoriasis or melanoma. Telemed J E-Health. 2006;12:639–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Cheraghi-Sohi S, Hole AR, Mead N, McDonald R, Whalley D, Bower P, et al. What patients want from primary care consultations: a discrete choice experiment to identify patients’ priorities. Ann Fam Med. 2008;6:107–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kleij KS, Tangermann U, Amelung VE, Krauth C. Patients’ preferences for primary health care—a systematic literature review of discrete choice experiments. BMC Health Serv Res. 2017;17:476–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Johansson AM, Lindberg I, Söderberg S. The views of health-care personnel about video consultation prior to implementation in primary health care in rural areas. Prim Health Care Res Dev. 2014;15:170–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Moffatt JJ, Eley DS. Barriers to the up-take of telemedicine in Australia: a view from providers. Rural Remote Health J. 2011;11:1–6.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    McGrath P. Technology-based patient consultations: research findings from hematology patients in regional, rural and remote Queensland. Patient Patient Centered Outcomes Res. 2015;8:199–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Richards H, King G, Reid M, Selvaraj S, McNicol I, Brebner E, et al. Remote working: survey of attitudes to eHealth of doctors and nurses in rural general practices in the United Kingdom. Fam Pract. 2005;22:2–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Gagnon MP, Duplantie J, Fortin JP, Landry R. Implementing telehealth to support medical practice in rural/remote regions: what are the conditions for success? Implem Sci. 2006;1:18–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Johnson FR, Lancsar E, Marshall D, Kilambi V, Mühlbacher A, Regier DA, et al. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    de Bekker-Grob EW, Ryan M, Gerard K. Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature. Health Econ. 2012;21:145–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Clark MD, et al. Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature. Pharmacoeconomics. 2014;32:883–902.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Lancaster KJ. A new approach to consumer theory. J Polit Econ. 1966;74:132–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Ryan M. Discrete choice experiments in health care. BMJ. 2004;328:360–1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Coast J, Al-Janabi H, Sutton EJ, Horrocks SA, Vosper AJ, Swancutt DR, et al. Using qualitative methods for attribute development for discrete choice experiments: issues and recommendations. Health Econ. 2012;21:730–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Gooberman-Hill R. Qualitative approaches to understanding patient preferences. Patient Patient Centered Outcomes Res. 2012;5(4):215–23.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Clark MD, Determann D, Petrou S, Moro D, de Bekker-Grob EW. Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature. Pharmacoeconomics. 2014;32(9):883–902.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Danner M, Vennedey V, Hiligsmann M, Fauser S, Stock S. Focus groups in elderly ophthalmologic patients: setting the stage for quantitative preference elicitation. Patient Patient Centered Outcomes Res. 2016;9:47–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Rydén A, Chen S, Flood E, Romero B, Grandy S. Discrete choice experiment attribute selection using a multinational interview study: treatment features important to patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Patient Patient Centered Outcomes Res. 2017;10:475–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Lancsar E, Swait J. Reconceptualising the external validity of discrete choice experiments. Pharmacoeconomics. 2014;32:951–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Corbin J, Strauss AL. Basics of qualitative research: techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Los Angeles: Sage; 2014.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Morse JM. Determining sample size. Qual Health Res. 2000;10:3–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated Criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care. 2007;19:349–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Smith JA, Flowers P, Larkin M. Interpretive phenomenological analysis: theory, method and research. London: Sage; 2009.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Lincoln YS, Guba EG. Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park: Sage; 1985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Tufford L, Newman P. Bracketing in qualitative research. Qual Social Work. 2010;11:80–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    King N, Horrocks C. Interviews in qualitative research. London: Sage; 2010.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Seghieri C, Mengoni A, Nuti S. Applying discrete choice modelling in a priority setting: an investigation of public preferences for primary care models. Eur J Health Econ. 2014;15(7):773–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Kenny P, De Abreu Lourenco R, Wong CY, Haas M, Goodall S. Community preferences in general practice: important factors for choosing a general practitioner. Health Expect. 2016;19:26–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Gerard K, Lattimer V. Preferences of patients for emergency services available during usual GP surgery hours: a discrete choice experiment. Fam Pract. 2004;22:28–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Booth N, Robinson P, Kohannejad J. Identification of high-quality consultation practice in primary care: the effects of computer use on doctor–patient rapport. J Innov Health Inf. 2004;12:75–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Baumann M, Baumann C, Le Bihan E, Chau N. How patients perceive the therapeutic communications skills of their general practitioners, and how that perception affects adherence: use of the TCom-skill GP scale in a specific geographical area. BMC Health Serv Res. 2008;8:244–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Barton PL, Brega AG, Devore PA, Mueller K, Paulich MJ, Floersch NR, et al. Specialist physicians’ knowledge and beliefs about telemedicine: a comparison of users and nonusers of the technology. Telemed e-Health. 2007;13(5):487–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Blakeman T, Macdonald W, Bower P, Gately C, Chew-Graham C. A qualitative study of GPs’ attitudes to self-management of chronic disease. Br J Gen Pract. 2006;56:407–14.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Pedersen LB, Kjær T, Kragstrup J, Gyrd-Hansen D. Do general practitioners know patients’ preferences? An empirical study on the agency relationship at an aggregate level using a discrete choice experiment. Value Health. 2012;15:514–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    van Dongen JJ, de Wit M, Smeets HW, Stoffers E, van Bokhoven MA, Daniëls R. “They Are Talking About Me, But Not With Me”: a focus group study to explore the patient perspective on interprofessional team meetings in primary care. Patient Patient-Centered Outcomes Res. 2017;21:1–10.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Daake D, Anthony WP. Understanding stakeholder power and influence gaps in a health care organization: an empirical study. Health Care Manage Rev. 2000;25:94–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Gask L. Powerlessness, control, and complexity: the experience of family physicians in a group model HMO. Ann Fam Med. 2004;2:150–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Family Medicine Department, The Ruth and Bruce Rappaport Faculty of MedicineTechnion - Israel Institute of TechnologyHaifaIsrael
  2. 2.Department of Nursing, Faculty of Social Welfare and Health SciencesUniversity of HaifaHaifaIsrael

Personalised recommendations