ArticleBMJ open2019
Preferences for centralised emergency medical services: discrete choice experiment.
Article in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The Evolving Landscape of Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: A Systematic Review.PharmacoEconomics · 2025Pooled it
- Parental preferences for pediatric surgical facility centralization: insights from a discrete choice experiment.Pediatric surgery international · 2025Article
- Investigating patients' preferences for new anti-diabetic drugs to inform public health insurance coverage decisions: a discrete choice experiment in China.BMC public health · 2022Article
- Healthcare preferences of the general Chinese population in the hierarchical medical system: A discrete choice experiment.Frontiers in public health · 2022Article
- Community residents' preferences for chronic disease management in Primary Care Facilities in China: a stated preference survey.Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique · 2021Article
- Preferences of Iranians to select the emergency department physician at the time of service delivery.BMC health services research · 2021Article
- Preferences for life expectancy discussions following diagnosis with a life-threatening illness: a discrete choice experiment.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2021Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesIt is desirable that public preferences are established and incorporated in emergency healthcare reforms. The aim of this study was to investigate preferences for local versus centralised provision of all emergency medical services (EMS) and explore what individuals think are important considerations for EMS delivery.
designA discrete choice experiment was conducted. The attributes used in the choice scenarios were: travel time to the hospital, waiting time to be seen, length of stay in the hospital, risks of dying, readmission and opportunity for outpatient care after emergency treatment at a local hospital.
settingNorth East England.
participantsParticipants were a randomly sampled general population, aged 16 years or above recruited from Healthwatch Northumberland network database of lay members and from clinical contact with Northumbria Healthcare National Health Service Foundation Trust via Patient Experience Team. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Analysis used logistic regression modelling techniques to determine the preference of each attribute. Marginal rates of substitution between attributes were estimated to understand the trade-offs individuals were willing to make.
resultsResponses were obtained from 148 people (62 completed a web and 86 a postal version). Respondents preferred shorter travel time to hospital, shorter waiting time, fewer number of days in hospital, low risk of death, low risk of readmission and outpatient follow-up care in their local hospital. However, individuals were willing to trade off increased travel time and waiting time for high-quality centralised care. Individuals were willing to travel 9 min more for a 1-day reduction in length of stay in the hospital, 38 min for a 1% reduction in risk of death and 112 min for having outpatient follow-up care at their local hospital.
conclusionsPeople value centralised EMS if it provides higher quality care and are willing to travel further and wait longer.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.