Collecting Physicians’ Preferences on Medical Devices: Are We Doing It Right? Evidence from Italian Orthopedists Using 2 Different Stated Preference Methods

Author:

Armeni Patrizio1,Meregaglia Michela1ORCID,Borsoi Ludovica1,Callea Giuditta1,Torbica Aleksandra12,Benazzo Francesco34ORCID,Tarricone Rosanna12

Affiliation:

1. Research Centre on Health and Social Care Management (CERGAS), SDA Bocconi School of Management, Milan, Italy

2. Department of Social and Political Science, Bocconi University, Milan, Italy

3. Scuola Universitaria di Istruzione Superiore (IUSS), Pavia, Italy

4. Fondazione Poliambulanza Istituto Ospedaliero, Brescia, Italy

Abstract

Objectives Physician preference items (PPIs) are high-cost medical devices for which clinicians express firm preferences with respect to a particular manufacturer or product. This study aims to identify the most important factors in the choice of new PPIs (hip or knee prosthesis) and infer about the existence of possible response biases in using 2 alternative stated preference techniques. Methods Six key attributes with 3 levels each were identified based on a literature review and clinical experts’ opinions. An online survey was administered to Italian hospital orthopedists using type 1 best-worst scaling (BWS) and binary discrete choice experiment (DCE). BWS data were analyzed through descriptive statistics and conditional logit model. A mixed logit regression model was applied to DCE data, and willingness-to-pay (WTP) was estimated. All analyses were conducted using Stata 16. Results A sample of 108 orthopedists were enrolled. In BWS, the most important attribute was “clinical evidence,” followed by “quality of products,” while the least relevant items were “relationship with the sales representative” and “cost.” DCE results suggested instead that orthopedists prefer high-quality products with robust clinical evidence, positive health technology assessment recommendation and affordable cost, and for which they have a consolidated experience of use and a good relationship with the sales representative. Conclusions The elicitation of preferences for PPIs using alternative methods can lead to different results. The BWS of type 1, which is similar to a ranking exercise, seems to be more affected by acquiescent responding and social desirability than the DCE, which introduces tradeoffs in the choice task and is likely to reveal more about true preferences. Highlights Physician preference items (PPIs) are medical devices particularly exposed to physicians’ choice with regard to type of product and supplier. Some established techniques of collecting preferences can be affected by response biases such as acquiescent responding and social desirability. Discrete choice experiments, introducing more complex tradeoffs in the choice task, are likely to mitigate such biases and reveal true physicians’ preferences for PPIs.

Funder

Ministero della Salute

Publisher

SAGE Publications

Subject

Health Policy

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3