Making sense of patient priorities: applying discrete choice methods in primary care using 'think aloud' technique

被引:32
作者
Cheraghi-Sohi, Sudeh [1 ]
Bower, Peter [1 ]
Mead, Nicola [1 ]
McDonald, Ruth [1 ]
Whalley, Diane [1 ]
Roland, Martin [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Manchester, Natl Primary Care Res & Dev Ctr, Manchester M13 9PL, Lancs, England
关键词
behavioural sciences; health economics; qualititative research; patient involvement; decision science;
D O I
10.1093/fampra/cmm007
中图分类号
R1 [预防医学、卫生学];
学科分类号
1004 ; 120402 ;
摘要
Background. Delivering effective health care within limited budgets requires an understanding of patient priorities. Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) provide patients with choices, where each choice differs in terms of certain attributes (such as waiting times, quality of care). Although this technique has significant potential in examining priorities, its use raises practical and conceptual issues. This paper describes the development of a DCE evaluating patient priorities in primary care. Methods. Twenty patients completed a DCE using a 'think aloud' protocol, where they verbalized their thinking while making choices. The analysis examined their decision-making processes. Results. There was evidence that patients reinterpreted some attributes, and related some to others outside the task. The cost attribute was interpreted in a variety of ways, dominating some patients' decision-making, being seen as irrelevant by others and being interpreted appropriately by some. The deree to which patients exhibited trading in line with theoretical assumptions also varied. Some choices in the hypothetical task were restricted by their previous experience, but more frequently patients tested the boundaries of the task in ways which directly reflected the primary care context. Conclusion. Patient interpretation of the discrete choice task was varied and some went beyond the formal boundaries of the task to make their choices. This highlights the importance of piloting attributes, providing clear instructions about the task and developing models of patient decision-making so that responses can be interpreted correctly.
引用
收藏
页码:276 / 282
页数:7
相关论文
共 35 条
[1]   Responses to standard gambles: are preferences 'well constructed'? [J].
Baker, R ;
Robinson, A .
HEALTH ECONOMICS, 2004, 13 (01) :37-48
[2]  
BOREN M, 2005, IEEE T PROF COMMUN, V43, P261
[3]   Setting standards based on patients' views on access and continuity: secondary analysis of data from the general practice assessment survey [J].
Bower, P ;
Roland, M ;
Campbell, J ;
Mead, N .
BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2003, 326 (7383) :258-260A
[4]  
Bruner J.S., 1957, CONT APPROACHES COGN, P218
[5]   Discrete choice experiments in health economics: For better or for worse? [J].
Bryan S. ;
Dolan P. .
The European Journal of Health Economics, formerly: HEPAC , 2004, 5 (3) :199-202
[6]  
CAIRNS J, 2004, HEALTH ECON, V11, P655
[7]   What are the key attributes of primary care for patients? Building a conceptual 'map' of patient preferences [J].
Cheraghi-Sohi, Sudeh ;
Bower, Peter ;
Mead, Nichola ;
McDonald, Ruth ;
Whalley, Diane ;
Roland, Martin .
HEALTH EXPECTATIONS, 2006, 9 (03) :275-284
[8]  
Coast J, 1999, HEALTH ECON, V8, P345, DOI 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1050(199906)8:4<345::AID-HEC432>3.3.CO
[9]  
2-H
[10]  
ERICSSON K, 1984, PROTOCOL ANA VERBAL