Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21029092›Full record

ArticleHealth services research2011

Channeling consumers to preferred providers and the impact of status quo bias: does type of provider matter?

Lieke H H M Boonen, Bas Donkers, Frederik T Schut

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health services research, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Discrete choice experiments of pharmacy services: a systematic review.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2016
    Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Patient engagement in health care.Health services research · 2011
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Lieke H H M BoonenInstitute of Health Policy and Management, Erasmus University, DR Rotterdam, The Netherlands. lieke.boonen@sirm.nl
Bas Donkers
Frederik T Schut

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

contextTo effectively bargain about the price and quality of health services, health insurers need to successfully channel their enrollees. Little is known about consumer sensitivity to different channeling incentives. In particular, the impact of status quo bias, which is expected to differ between different provider types, can play a large role in insurers' channeling ability.

objectiveTo examine consumer sensitivity to channeling strategies and to analyze the impact of status quo bias for different provider types. DATA SOURCES/STUDY

designWith a large-scale discrete choice experiment, we investigate the impact of channeling incentives on choices for pharmacies and general practitioners (GPs). Survey data were obtained among a representative Dutch household panel (n = 2,500). PRINCIPAL

findingsNegative financial incentives have a two to three times larger impact on provider choice than positive ones. Positive financial incentives have a relatively small impact on GP choice, while the impact of qualitative incentives is relatively large. Status quo bias has a large impact on provider choice, which is more prominent in the case of GPs than in the case of pharmacies.

conclusionThe large impact of the status quo bias makes channeling consumers away from their current providers a daunting task, particularly in the case of GPs.

Indexed as

Consumer BehaviorChoice BehaviorCost SharingGeneral PractitionersHumansMarketing of Health ServicesModels, EconometricPharmaciesPreferred Provider OrganizationsQuality of Health Care

Identifiers

PMID21029092
PMCPMC3064917

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.