The elicitation of patient and physician preferences for calculating consumer-based composite measures on hospital report cards: results of two discrete choice experiments
-
Published:2023-12-15
Issue:
Volume:
Page:
-
ISSN:1618-7598
-
Container-title:The European Journal of Health Economics
-
language:en
-
Short-container-title:Eur J Health Econ
Author:
Emmert MartinORCID, Rohrbacher Stefan, Meier Florian, Heppe Laura, Drach Cordula, Schindler Anja, Sander Uwe, Patzelt Christiane, Frömke Cornelia, Schöffski Oliver, Lauerer Michael
Abstract
Abstract
Purpose
The calculation of aggregated composite measures is a widely used strategy to reduce the amount of data on hospital report cards. Therefore, this study aims to elicit and compare preferences of both patients as well as referring physicians regarding publicly available hospital quality information
Methods
Based on systematic literature reviews as well as qualitative analysis, two discrete choice experiments (DCEs) were applied to elicit patients’ and referring physicians’ preferences. The DCEs were conducted using a fractional factorial design. Statistical data analysis was performed using multinomial logit models
Results
Apart from five identical attributes, one specific attribute was identified for each study group, respectively. Overall, 322 patients (mean age 68.99) and 187 referring physicians (mean age 53.60) were included. Our models displayed significant coefficients for all attributes (p < 0.001 each). Among patients, “Postoperative complication rate” (20.6%; level range of 1.164) was rated highest, followed by “Mobility at hospital discharge” (19.9%; level range of 1.127), and ‘‘The number of cases treated” (18.5%; level range of 1.045). In contrast, referring physicians valued most the ‘‘One-year revision surgery rate’’ (30.4%; level range of 1.989), followed by “The number of cases treated” (21.0%; level range of 1.372), and “Postoperative complication rate” (17.2%; level range of 1.123)
Conclusion
We determined considerable differences between both study groups when calculating the relative value of publicly available hospital quality information. This may have an impact when calculating aggregated composite measures based on consumer-based weighting.
Funder
The German health care Innovation Fund Universität Bayreuth
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Health Policy,Economics, Econometrics and Finance (miscellaneous)
Reference87 articles.
1. Totten, A.M., Wagner, J., Tiwari, A., O`Haire, C., Griffin, J., Walker, M.: Public reporting as a quality improvement strategy: closing the quality gap: revisiting the state of the science. In: AHRQ Publication No. 12-E011-EF. Evidence Report/Technology Assessment; Number 208. (2012) 2. Berwick, D.M., James, B., Coye, M.J.: Connections between quality measurement and improvement. Med. Care 41(1), I30–I38 (2003) 3. Contandriopoulos, D., Champagne, F., Denis, J.-L.: The multiple causal pathways between performance measures’ use and effects. Med. Care Res. Rev. 71(1), 3–20 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1177/1077558713496320 4. Emmert, M., Schindler, A., Drach, C., et al.: The use intention of hospital report cards among patients in the presence or absence of patient-reported outcomes. Health Policy 126(6), 541–548 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2022.03.015 5. Hussey, P.S., Luft, H.S., McNamara, P.: Public reporting of provider performance at a crossroads in the United States: summary of current barriers and recommendations on how to move forward. Med. Care Res. Re. MCRR. 71(5 Suppl), 5S-16S (2014). https://doi.org/10.1177/1077558714535980
|
|