Using Discrete Choice Methodology to Explore the Impact of Patient Room Window Design on Hospital Choice.
daylight
discrete choice
healthcare design
hospital environment
patient choice
window
Journal
Journal of patient experience
ISSN: 2374-3735
Titre abrégé: J Patient Exp
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101688338
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2022
2022
Historique:
entrez:
23
6
2022
pubmed:
24
6
2022
medline:
24
6
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Evidence-based design has been fundamental to designing healthcare environments for patient outcomes and experience, yet few studies have studied how design factors drive patient choice. 652 patients who recently received care at hospitals across the United States were administered an online discrete choice survey to investigate the factors playing into their choice between hypothetical hospitals. Discrete choice models are widely used to model patient preferences among treatment alternatives, but few studies have utilized this approach to investigate healthcare design alternatives. In the current study, respondents were asked to choose between hypothetical hospitals that differed in patient room design, window features of the room, appointment availability, distance from home, insurance coverage, and HCAHPS ratings. The results demonstrate that patient room design that allowed unobscured access to daylight and views through windows, in-network insurance coverage, closer distance from home, and one-star higher patient experience rating increased the likelihood of a patient's hospital choice. The study broadly explores discrete choice model's applicability to healthcare design and its ability to quantify patient perceptions with a metric meaningful for hospital administrators.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35734469
doi: 10.1177/23743735221107240
pii: 10.1177_23743735221107240
pmc: PMC9208038
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
23743735221107240Informations de copyright
© The Author(s) 2022.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Declaration of Conflicting Interests: MW and PM are employed by View, Inc., the sponsor of the research study. Their contributions to the study included conceptualization, data collection, data analysis, and writing.
Références
Pharmacoeconomics. 2014 Sep;32(9):883-902
pubmed: 25005924
Am J Manag Care. 2020 Jul 1;26(7):e219-e224
pubmed: 32672920
Health Aff (Millwood). 2021 Jan;40(1):138-145
pubmed: 33400583
Health Econ. 2012 Feb;21(2):145-72
pubmed: 22223558
J Health Econ. 1992 May;11(1):43-62
pubmed: 10119756
Work. 2015;53(1):45-55
pubmed: 26684703
HERD. 2020 Jan;13(1):145-178
pubmed: 31195834
Health Econ. 2012 Apr;21(4):444-56
pubmed: 21384464
Science. 1984 Apr 27;224(4647):420-1
pubmed: 6143402
J R Soc Med. 1998 Jul;91(7):352-4
pubmed: 9771492
J Health Care Inter Des. 1991;3:97-109
pubmed: 10123973
Value Health. 2019 Sep;22(9):1050-1062
pubmed: 31511182
Health Policy Plan. 2020 Apr 1;35(3):267-278
pubmed: 31830248
HERD. 2021 Jan;14(1):31-46
pubmed: 32662317
J Health Econ. 1994 Oct;13(3):317-22
pubmed: 10138857
Pharmacoeconomics. 2019 Feb;37(2):201-226
pubmed: 30392040
Complement Ther Clin Pract. 2016 Aug;24:174-88
pubmed: 27502819
Health Care Manag Sci. 2018 Jun;21(2):259-268
pubmed: 28401405
Natl Bur Econ Res Bull Aging Health. 2009;(1):3
pubmed: 19400003
HERD. 2012 Winter;5(2):46-60
pubmed: 23154902
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021 Oct 12;18(20):
pubmed: 34682419
JAMA. 1990 Jun 6;263(21):2899-906
pubmed: 2110985
HERD. 2017 Oct;10(5):12-27
pubmed: 28068858
Psychosom Med. 2005 Jan-Feb;67(1):156-63
pubmed: 15673638