Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36076226›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2022

Do patients' preferences prevail in hospital selection?: a comparison between discrete choice experiments and revealed hospital choice.

Benjamin H Salampessy, David Ikkersheim, France R M Portrait, Xander Koolman

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.9field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Dynamic resectorization to improve utility of healthcare systems.Journal of health, population, and nutrition · 2024
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Benjamin H SalampessyDepartment of Health Sciences, Faculty of Science, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1085, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. b.h.salampessij@vu.nl.
David IkkersheimKPMG, Laan van Langerhuize 1, 1186 DS, Amstelveen, The Netherlands.
France R M PortraitDepartment of Health Sciences, Faculty of Science, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1085, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Xander KoolmanDepartment of Health Sciences, Faculty of Science, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1085, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam · NLKPMG (Netherlands) · NL

Funding

ZonMw 49400016
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn patient choice, patients are expected to select the provider that best fits their preferences. In this study, we assess to what extent the hospital choice of patients in practice corresponds with their preferred choice.

methodsDutch patients with breast cancer (n = 631) and cataract (n = 1109) were recruited. We employed a discrete choice experiment (DCE) per condition to measure stated preferences and predict the distribution of patients across four hospitals. Each DCE included five attributes: patient experiences, a clinical outcome indicator, waiting time, travel distance and whether the hospital had been recommended (e.g., by the General Practitioner (GP)). Revealed choices were derived from claims data.

resultsHospital quality was valued as most important in the DCE; the largest marginal rates of substitution (willingness to wait) were observed for the clinical outcome indicator (breast cancer: 38.6 days (95% confidence interval (95%CI): 32.9-44.2); cataract: 210.5 days (95%CI: 140.8-280.2)). In practice, it was of lesser importance. In revealed choices, travel distance became the most important attribute; it accounted for 85.5% (breast cancer) and 95.5% (cataract) of the log-likelihood. The predicted distribution of patients differed from that observed in practice in terms of absolute value and, for breast cancer, also in relative order. Similar results were observed in population weighted analyses. DISCUSSION: Study findings show that patients highly valued quality information in the choice for a hospital. However, in practice these preferences did not prevail. Our findings suggest that GPs played a major role and that patients mostly ended up selecting the nearest hospital.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsCataractChoice BehaviorFemaleHospitalsHumansPatient PreferenceChoice behaviorDiscrete choice experimentHospitalPatient preferencesQuality of careRevealed and stated preferences

Identifiers

PMID36076226
PMCPMC9461248
OpenAlexW4295088881

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.