Advertisement

Applied Health Economics and Health Policy

, Volume 3, Issue 4, pp 183–194 | Cite as

Do patients always prefer quicker treatment?

A discrete choice analysis of patients’ stated preferences in the London Patient Choice Project
  • Peter BurgeEmail author
  • Nancy Devlin
  • John Appleby
  • Charlene Rohr
  • Jonathan Grant
Article

Abstract

The London Patient Choice Project (LPCP) was established to offer NHS patients more choice over where and when they receive treatment, and to reduce waiting times. The LPCP offered those patients waiting around 6 months for elective procedures a choice of treatment at an alternative NHS or private hospital, or treatment at an overseas hospital.

The aim of this article is to investigate the following questions regarding patients’ response to choice: (a) What are the factors that patients consider when deciding whether to accept the alternatives they are offered? (b) What is the relative importance to patients of each factor when making their choices, i.e. what trade-offs are patients prepared to make between time waited and other factors? (c) Are there any systematic differences between subgroups of patients (in terms of their personal, health and sociodemographic characteristics) in their response to choice?

Patients’ preferences were elicited using a discrete choice experiment. Patients eligible to participate in the LPCP were recruited prior to being offered their choice between hospitals and each presented with seven hypothetical choices via a self-completed questionnaire. Data were received from 2114 patients. Thirty percent of respondents consistently chose their ‘current’ over the ‘alternative’ hospital. All the attributes and levels examined in the experiment were found to exhibit a significant influence on patients’ likelihood of opting for an alternative provider, in the expected direction. Age, education and income had an important effect on the ‘uptake’ of choice. Our results suggest several important implications for policy. First, there may be equity concerns arising from some patient subgroups being more predisposed to accept choice. Second, although reduced waiting time is important to most patients, it is not all that matters. For example, the reputation of the proffered alternatives is of key importance, suggesting careful thought is required about what information on quality and reputation can/should be made available and how it should be made available to facilitate informed choice.

Keywords

Discrete Choice Experiment Naive Estimation Equity Concern Alternative Provider Hypothetical Choice 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This study was funded by the UK National Health Service, as part of an ongoing evaluation of the London Patient Choice Project (LPCP). The data reported in this study were collected as part of a wider study on patients’ experience of patient choice undertaken by the Picker Institute (Europe), our partners in the LPCP evaluation. The role of the Picker Institute in developing and testing the questionnaire design and coordinating data collection is gratefully acknowledged, as is the assistance of Professor Andrew Daly in provid-ing technical advice throughout the survey design and model estimation. ## The authors have no conflicts of interest that are directly relevant to the content of this article.

References

  1. 1.
    Secretary of State for Health. The NHS plan. Command paper no. 4818-I. London: The Stationery Office, 2000Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ryan M, Gerard K. Using discrete choice experiments to value health care programmes: current practice and future research reflections. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 2003; 2: 55–64PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bateman I, Carson R, Day B, et al. Economic valuation with stated preference techniques: a manual. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2003Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Louviere J, Hensher D, Swait J, et al. Stated choice methods: analysis and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wind Y, Spitz LK. Analytical approach to marketing decisions in health-care organizations. Oper Res 1976; 24(5): 973–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ryan M, Mclntosh E, Dean T, et al. Trade-offs between location and waiting times in the provision of health care: the case of elective surgery on the Isle of Wight. J Public Health Med 2000; 22: 202–10PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Propper C. Contingent valuation of time spent on NHS waiting lists. Econ J 1990; 100: 193–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Propper C. The disutility of time spent on the United Kingdom’s National Health Service waiting lists. J Hum Resour 1994; 30: 677–700CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Acito F. An investigation of some data collection issues in conjoint measurement. In: Greenberg BA, Bellenger DN, editors. Contemporary marketing thought. Chicago (IL): American Marketing Association, 1977: 82–5Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Leigh TW, McKay DB, Summers JO. Reliability and validation of conjoint analysis and self-explicated weights: a comparison. J Mark Res 1984; 21: 456–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Levin I, Louviere J, Schepanski A. External validity tests of laboratory studies of information integration. Organ Behav Hum Perform 1983; 31: 173–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    SPSS Conjoint [computer program]. Version 8.0. Chicago: SPSS Inc., 1997Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Luce R. Individual choice behaviour: a theoretical analysis. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1959Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    McFadden D. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. In: Zarembka P, editor. Frontiers in econometrics. New York: Academic Press, 1974: 105–42Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ben-Akiva M, Lerman SR. Discrete choice analysis: theory and application to travel demand. Cambridge (MA): The MIT Press, 1985Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bissell AF, Ferguson RA. The jackknife: toy, tool or two-edged weapon? Statistician 1975; 24: 79–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Miller RG. The jackknife: a review. Biometrika 1974; 61: 1–14Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Cirillo C, Daly AJ, Lindveld K. Eliminating bia due to the repeated measurements problem in SP data. In: Labbé M, Laporte G, Tanczos K, et al., editors. Operations research and decision aid methodologies in traffic and transportation management. Springer Verlag 1998: 203–27Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bradley MA, Daly A. Estimation of logit choice models using mixed stated preference and revealed preference information [presentation]. 6th International Conference on Travel Behaviour; 1991 May; QuébecGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Appleby J, Harrison A, Devlin N. What is the real cost of more patient choice? London: King’s Fund, 2003Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bridges JFP. Stated preference methods in health care evaluation: an emerging methodological paradigm in health economics. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 2003; 2: 213–24PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis Data Information BV 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter Burge
    • 1
    Email author
  • Nancy Devlin
    • 2
  • John Appleby
    • 3
  • Charlene Rohr
    • 1
  • Jonathan Grant
    • 1
  1. 1.Grafton HouseRAND EuropeCambridgeUK
  2. 2.City Health Economics CentreCity UniversityLondonUK
  3. 3.King’s FundLondonUK

Personalised recommendations