Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24241816›Full record

ArticleThe European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care2014

Applying discrete choice modelling in a priority setting: an investigation of public preferences for primary care models.

Chiara Seghieri, Alessandro Mengoni, Sabina Nuti

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
3.5field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 29 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. The application of discrete choice experiments eliciting young peoples' preferences for healthcare: a systematic literature review.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2023
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Chiara SeghieriLaboratorio Management e Sanità, Istituto di Management, Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna, Piazza Martiri della Libertà, 24, 56127, Pisa, Italy, c.seghieri@sssup.it.
Alessandro Mengoni
Sabina Nuti
Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna · ITOspedali Riuniti di Ancona · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe shift toward more innovative and sustainable primary care models in Italy leads policy makers and clinicians to face difficult decisions between options that are all regarded as potentially beneficial. In this study, patient preferences for different primary care models in the Tuscany region of Italy were elicited. The relative importance of different attributes to the surveyed respondents was then examined, as well as the rate at which individuals trade between attributes and the relative value of different service configurations.

methodsA discrete choice experiment survey explored the following attributes in a stratified random sample of 6,970 adults: primary care provider, diagnostic facilities and waiting time for the visit.

resultsRespondents (3,263) were likely to prefer a consultation by their own general practitioner (GP) and a practice with many diagnostic facilities. The predicted utilities of different service configurations have shown that a "primary care centre" with many diagnostic facilities was preferable to a "solo GP" model or a "group general practice".

conclusionsThe study demonstrated how a patient choice model could be used by decision makers for developing successful policies that takes into account different healthcare needs, balancing responsiveness with care continuity, equity and appropriateness. Considering that a primary care centre would perform better than a "solo GP", especially for younger respondents and for those with minor healthcare needs, for a more rapid diffusion of this model policymakers and managers could direct the care of primary care centres towards these targeted subgroups, at least in the first phase.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAge FactorsChoice BehaviorConsumer BehaviorFemaleHealth PrioritiesHealth Services Needs and DemandHumansItalyMaleMiddle AgedModels, TheoreticalPrimary Health Care

Identifiers

PMID24241816
PMCPMC4145207
OpenAlexW1964284849

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.