Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36085032›Full record

SynthesisBMC primary care2022

Conjoint analyses of patients' preferences for primary care: a systematic review.

Audrey Huili Lim, Sock Wen Ng, Xin Rou Teh, Su Miin Ong, Sheamini Sivasampu, Ka Keat Lim

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC primary care, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

6 authors.

Audrey Huili LimCentre for Clinical Outcomes Research, Institute for Clinical Research, National Institutes of Health, Ministry of Health, Shah Alam, Malaysia.ORCID 0000-0001-6721-1505
Sock Wen NgCentre for Clinical Outcomes Research, Institute for Clinical Research, National Institutes of Health, Ministry of Health, Shah Alam, Malaysia.ORCID 0000-0002-1727-3043
Xin Rou TehCentre for Clinical Outcomes Research, Institute for Clinical Research, National Institutes of Health, Ministry of Health, Shah Alam, Malaysia.ORCID 0000-0003-3969-1745
Su Miin OngCentre for Clinical Outcomes Research, Institute for Clinical Research, National Institutes of Health, Ministry of Health, Shah Alam, Malaysia.ORCID 0000-0002-5430-5040
Sheamini SivasampuCentre for Clinical Outcomes Research, Institute for Clinical Research, National Institutes of Health, Ministry of Health, Shah Alam, Malaysia.ORCID 0000-0003-2314-6048
Ka Keat LimSchool of Life Course & Population Sciences, Faculty of Life Sciences & Medicine, King's College London, London, UK. ka_keat.lim@kcl.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-2340-4097

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWhile patients' preferences in primary care have been examined in numerous conjoint analyses, there has been little systematic effort to synthesise the findings. This review aimed to identify, to organise and to assess the strength of evidence for the attributes and factors associated with preference heterogeneity in conjoint analyses for primary care outpatient visits.

methodsWe searched five bibliographic databases (PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, Econlit and Scopus) from inception until 15 December 2021, complemented by hand-searching. We included conjoint analyses for primary care outpatient visits. Two reviewers independently screened papers for inclusion and assessed the quality of all included studies using the checklist by ISPOR Task Force for Conjoint Analysis. We categorized the attributes of primary care based on Primary Care Monitoring System framework and factors based on Andersen's Behavioural Model of Health Services Use. We then assessed the strength of evidence and direction of preference for the attributes of primary care, and factors affecting preference heterogeneity based on study quality and consistency in findings.

resultsOf 35 included studies, most (82.4%) were performed in high-income countries. Each study examined 3-8 attributes, mainly identified through literature reviews (n = 25). Only six examined visits for chronic conditions, with the rest on acute or non-specific / other conditions. Process attributes were more commonly examined than structure or outcome attributes. The three most commonly examined attributes were waiting time for appointment, out-of-pocket costs and ability to choose the providers they see. We identified 24/58 attributes with strong or moderate evidence of association with primary care uptake (e.g., various waiting times, out-of-pocket costs) and 4/43 factors with strong evidence of affecting preference heterogeneity (e.g., age, gender).

conclusionsWe found 35 conjoint analyses examining 58 attributes of primary care and 43 factors that potentially affect the preference of these attributes. The attributes and factors, stratified into evidence levels based on study quality and consistency, can guide the design of research or policies to improve patients' uptake of primary care. We recommend future conjoint analyses to specify the types of visits and to define their attributes clearly, to facilitate consistent understanding among respondents and the design of interventions targeting them. Word Count: 346/350 words.

trial registrationOn Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/m7ts9.

Indexed as

Appointments and SchedulesPatient PreferenceAdvisory CommitteesHealth ExpendituresHumansPrimary Health CareAttributesConjoint analysisDiscrete choice experimentsPatientsPreferencePreference heterogeneityPrimary careSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID36085032
PMCPMC9463739

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.