Investigation of attributes which guide choice in cataract surgery services in urban Sydney, Australia

Gilbert, Celeste; Keay, Lisa; Palagyi, Anna; Quang, Vu; McCluskey, Peter; White, Andrew; Carnt, Nicole; Stapleton, Fiona; Laba, Tracey‐Lea

doi:10.1111/cxo.12653

Cited by 11 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Furthermore, an increasing number of health-related DCEs are now starting to rigorously report the attribute development and level selection process. Examples include DCEs on micro health insurance in Ghana [14], basic health insurance in Iran [22], cataract surgery in Australia [23], and antirheumatic drugs in the Netherlands [24].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Attribute development and level selection for a discrete choice experiment to elicit the preferences of health care providers for capitation payment mechanism in Kenya

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundStated preference elicitation methods such as discrete choice experiments (DCEs) are now widely used in the health domain. However, the “quality” of health-related DCEs has come under criticism due to the lack of rigour in conducting and reporting some aspects of the design process such as attribute and level development. Superficially selecting attributes and levels and vaguely reporting the process might result in misspecification of attributes which may, in turn, bias the study and misinform policy. To address these concerns, we meticulously conducted and report our systematic attribute development and level selection process for a DCE to elicit the preferences of health care providers for the attributes of a capitation payment mechanism in Kenya.MethodologyWe used a four-stage process proposed by Helter and Boehler to conduct and report the attribute development and level selection process. The process entailed raw data collection, data reduction, removing inappropriate attributes, and wording of attributes. Raw data was collected through a literature review and a qualitative study. Data was reduced to a long list of attributes which were then screened for appropriateness by a panel of experts. The resulting attributes and levels were worded and pretested in a pilot study. Revisions were made and a final list of attributes and levels decided.ResultsThe literature review unearthed seven attributes of provider payment mechanisms while the qualitative study uncovered 10 capitation attributes. Then, inappropriate attributes were removed using criteria such as salience, correlation, plausibility, and capability of being traded. The resulting five attributes were worded appropriately and pretested in a pilot study with 31 respondents. The pilot study results were used to make revisions. Finally, four attributes were established for the DCE, namely, payment schedule, timeliness of payments, capitation rate per individual per year, and services to be paid by the capitation rate.ConclusionBy rigorously conducting and reporting the process of attribute development and level selection of our DCE,we improved transparency and helped researchers judge the quality.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Attribute development and level selection for a discrete choice experiment to elicit the preferences of health care providers for capitation payment mechanism in Kenya

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Ryden et al (2017) highlight the challenges in conducting formative qualitative research across cultures and languages from five countries [58]. Gilbert et al (2018) elucidate similarities and differences across English-and non-English-speaking participants in Australia [59].…”

Section: Results/findingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reporting Formative Qualitative Research to Support the Development of Quantitative Preference Study Protocols and Corresponding Survey Instruments: Guidelines for Authors and Reviewers

Hollin

Craig

Coast

et al. 2019

Patient

126

141

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Formative qualitative research is foundational to the methodological development process of quantitative health preference research (HPR). Despite its ability to improve the validity of the quantitative evidence, formative qualitative research is underreported.Objective: To improve the frequency and quality of reporting, we developed guidelines for reporting this type of research. The guidelines focus on formative qualitative research used to develop robust and acceptable quantitative study protocols and corresponding survey instruments in HPR.Methods: In December 2018, a steering committee was formed as a means to accumulate the expertise of the HPR community on the reporting guidelines (21 members, seven countries, multiple settings, and disciplines). Using existing guidelines and examples, the committee constructed, revised, and refined the guidelines. The guidelines underwent beta-testing by three researchers and further revision to the guidelines were made based on their feedback as well as from comments from members of the International Academy of Health Preference Research (IAHPR) and the editorial board of The Patient.Results: The guidelines have five components: introductory material (4 domains); methods (12); results/findings (2); discussion (2); and other (2). They are concordant with existing guidelines, published examples, beta testing results, and expert comments.Conclusions: Publishing formative qualitative research is a necessary step towards strengthening the foundation of any quantitative study, enhancing the relevance of its preference evidence. The guidelines should aid researchers, reviewers and regulatory agencies as well as promote transparency within HPR more broadly. Key Points for Decision Makers• These are the first guidelines on reporting formative qualitative research on patient experience that support the development of quantitative preference study protocols and corresponding instruments. • These guidelines focus on reporting techniques that enhance transparency and trustworthiness, thereby improving the likelihood that the scientific contributions of quantitative preference studies are well-founded, improving the validity of the quantitative evidence.

show abstract

“…Even though there were statistically signi cant reductions in wait times for patients treated in private facilities in most studies, the evidence on the importance of wait times on patient preferences is controversial. A recent Australian study 40 identi ed the ve most important attributes that patients consider when making decisions about cataract surgery in an urban setting are surgical wait time, cost, travel time, hospital reputation, and surgeon experience. This qualitative study has two main limitations.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A systematic review of the accessibility, acceptability, safety, efficiency, clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of private providers of elective surgical services compared with public providers

Akpinar

Kirwin

Tjosvold

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many publicly funded health systems use a mix of privately and publicly operated providers of care to deliver elective surgical services. We review the role of private elective surgical provision within publicly funded health systems in high-income countries. The outcomes evaluated include accessibility, acceptability, safety, clinical effectiveness, efficiency, and cost/cost-effectiveness. Twenty-seven articles met the review inclusion criteria. We found mixed results across each of our reported outcomes. Wait times were shorter for patients treated in private facilities in most studies, and inequalities by age and socioeconomic deprivation were found to increase with private provision in some studies. Acceptability results were mixed, with most studies finding no differences between public and private provision and others finding higher satisfaction at public facilities. The results for safety outcomes were divided, but most studies that found improved safety outcomes in private facilities, noting that private patients had a lower preoperative risk of complications. Clinical effectiveness was similar in most studies, with differences in outcomes mainly attributed to patient selection or prosthesis choice. Very few studies reported cost and cost-effectiveness outcomes, and just two included studies concluded that private facilities are economically viable.

show abstract

Investigation of attributes which guide choice in cataract surgery services in urban Sydney, Australia

Cited by 11 publications

References 24 publications

Attribute development and level selection for a discrete choice experiment to elicit the preferences of health care providers for capitation payment mechanism in Kenya

Attribute development and level selection for a discrete choice experiment to elicit the preferences of health care providers for capitation payment mechanism in Kenya

Reporting Formative Qualitative Research to Support the Development of Quantitative Preference Study Protocols and Corresponding Survey Instruments: Guidelines for Authors and Reviewers

A systematic review of the accessibility, acceptability, safety, efficiency, clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of private providers of elective surgical services compared with public providers

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About