Preferences heterogeneity of health care utilization of community residents in China: a stated preference discrete choice experiment.
Discrete choice experiment
Healthcare utilization
Preference heterogeneity
Journal
BMC health services research
ISSN: 1472-6963
Titre abrégé: BMC Health Serv Res
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088677
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
18 May 2020
18 May 2020
Historique:
received:
11
08
2019
accepted:
20
03
2020
entrez:
20
5
2020
pubmed:
20
5
2020
medline:
15
12
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
To tackle the issue with the low usage of primary healthcare service in China, it is essential to align resource distribution with the preferences of the community residents. There are few academic researches for describing residents' perceived characteristics of healthcare services in China. This study aims to investigate the preferences of healthcare services utilization in community residents and explore the heterogeneity. The findings will be useful for the policy makers to take targeted measures to tailor the provision of healthcare services. The face-to-face interviews and surveys were conducted to elicit four key attributes (care provider; mode of services; cost; travel time) of the preference from community residents for healthcare utilization. A rational test was presented first to confirm the consistency, and then 16 pairs of choice tasks with 12 sociodemographic items were given to the respondents. Two hypothetical options for each set, without an opt-out option, were presented in each choice task. The latent class analysis (LCA) was used to analyse the data. Two thousand one hundred sixty respondents from 36 communities in 6 cities were recruited for our study. 2019 (93.47%) respondents completed valid discrete choice experiment (DCE) questionnaires. The LCA results suggested that four groups of similar preferences were identified. The first group (27.29%) labelled as "Comprehensive consideration" had an even preference of all four attributes. The second group (37.79%) labelled as "Price-driven" preferred low-price healthcare services. The third group labelled as "Near distance" showed a clear preference for seeking healthcare services nearby. The fourth group (34.18%) labelled as "Quality seeker" preferred the healthcare service provided by experts. Willingness to pay (WTP) results showed that people were willing to accept CNY202.12($29.37) for Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) services and willing to pay CNY604.31($87.81) for the service provided by experts. Our study qualitatively measures the distinct preferences for healthcare utilization in community residents in China. The results suggest that the care provider, mode of services, travel time and cost should be considered in priority setting decisions. The study, however, reveals substantial disagreement in opinion of TCM between different population subgroups.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
To tackle the issue with the low usage of primary healthcare service in China, it is essential to align resource distribution with the preferences of the community residents. There are few academic researches for describing residents' perceived characteristics of healthcare services in China. This study aims to investigate the preferences of healthcare services utilization in community residents and explore the heterogeneity. The findings will be useful for the policy makers to take targeted measures to tailor the provision of healthcare services.
METHODS
METHODS
The face-to-face interviews and surveys were conducted to elicit four key attributes (care provider; mode of services; cost; travel time) of the preference from community residents for healthcare utilization. A rational test was presented first to confirm the consistency, and then 16 pairs of choice tasks with 12 sociodemographic items were given to the respondents. Two hypothetical options for each set, without an opt-out option, were presented in each choice task. The latent class analysis (LCA) was used to analyse the data.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Two thousand one hundred sixty respondents from 36 communities in 6 cities were recruited for our study. 2019 (93.47%) respondents completed valid discrete choice experiment (DCE) questionnaires. The LCA results suggested that four groups of similar preferences were identified. The first group (27.29%) labelled as "Comprehensive consideration" had an even preference of all four attributes. The second group (37.79%) labelled as "Price-driven" preferred low-price healthcare services. The third group labelled as "Near distance" showed a clear preference for seeking healthcare services nearby. The fourth group (34.18%) labelled as "Quality seeker" preferred the healthcare service provided by experts. Willingness to pay (WTP) results showed that people were willing to accept CNY202.12($29.37) for Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) services and willing to pay CNY604.31($87.81) for the service provided by experts.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Our study qualitatively measures the distinct preferences for healthcare utilization in community residents in China. The results suggest that the care provider, mode of services, travel time and cost should be considered in priority setting decisions. The study, however, reveals substantial disagreement in opinion of TCM between different population subgroups.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32423447
doi: 10.1186/s12913-020-05134-4
pii: 10.1186/s12913-020-05134-4
pmc: PMC7236293
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
430Subventions
Organisme : National Natural Science Foundation of China
ID : 71673095
Références
Int J Clin Pharm. 2016 Jun;38(3):620-30
pubmed: 26610687
Value Health. 2018 Oct;21(10):1192-1197
pubmed: 30314620
Int J Nurs Stud. 2018 Oct;86:11-19
pubmed: 29958138
PLoS One. 2016 Aug 23;11(8):e0161683
pubmed: 27552228
BMJ Open. 2016 Nov 24;6(11):e013059
pubmed: 27884848
J Public Health Med. 2000 Jun;22(2):202-10
pubmed: 10912560
Value Health. 2018 Jul;21(7):843-849
pubmed: 30005757
J Community Health. 2013 Oct;38(5):864-72
pubmed: 23636415
JAMA Intern Med. 2014 Dec;174(12):1914-20
pubmed: 25285394
J Am Board Fam Med. 2016 Mar-Apr;29(2):240-7
pubmed: 26957381
MDM Policy Pract. 2017 May 23;2(1):2381468317708319
pubmed: 30288420
Soc Sci Med. 2008 Jun;66(12):2448-59
pubmed: 18400349
Lancet. 2014 Aug 30;384(9945):805-18
pubmed: 25176551
Value Health. 2016 Mar-Apr;19(2):158-66
pubmed: 27021749
Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2016 Jun;14(3):253-66
pubmed: 26992386
Patient. 2017 Oct;10(5):553-565
pubmed: 28364387
Eur J Public Health. 2015 Feb;25(1):3-9
pubmed: 24997203
BMC Health Serv Res. 2017 Jul 11;17(1):476
pubmed: 28697796
BMC Geriatr. 2009 Feb 03;9:6
pubmed: 19192295
Lancet. 2019 Sep 28;394(10204):1192-1204
pubmed: 31571602
Eur J Health Econ. 2005 Dec;6(4):314-6
pubmed: 16133096
J Health Serv Res Policy. 2008 Apr;13 Suppl 2:3-10
pubmed: 18416923
Health Soc Care Community. 2008 Mar;16(2):197-207
pubmed: 18290984
BMJ. 2000 Jun 3;320(7248):1530-3
pubmed: 10834905
J Health Econ. 1982 May;1(1):5-28
pubmed: 10263949
J Health Serv Res Policy. 2006 Jul;11(3):167-71
pubmed: 16824264
Am J Public Health. 2015 Mar;105(3):431-7
pubmed: 25602898
Health Econ. 2012 Jun;21(6):730-41
pubmed: 21557381
Health Policy. 2015 Apr;119(4):427-36
pubmed: 25456019
Eur J Health Econ. 2018 Nov;19(8):1053-1066
pubmed: 29380229
Soc Sci Med. 2019 Sep;237:112396
pubmed: 31404884
Soc Sci Med. 2010 May;70(9):1317-25
pubmed: 20167406
N Engl J Med. 2014 Jul 3;371(1):3-5
pubmed: 24988552
Health Expect. 2009 Mar;12(1):92-105
pubmed: 19250155
East Afr Med J. 2003 Feb;80(2):61-2
pubmed: 16167716
Ann Fam Med. 2010 Mar-Apr;8(2):117-23
pubmed: 20212298
BMC Health Serv Res. 2012 Aug 22;12:272
pubmed: 22913549
BMJ. 2019 Jun 19;365:l2349
pubmed: 31217222
PLoS One. 2014 Nov 03;9(11):e111805
pubmed: 25365169
PLoS Med. 2017 Oct 17;14(10):e1002405
pubmed: 29040263