Transforming Health Care Delivery towards Value-Based Health Care in Germany: A Delphi Survey among Stakeholders.

Value-based healthcare (VBC) represents one strategy to meet growing challenges in healthcare systems. To date, VBC is not implemented broadly in the German healthcare system. A Delphi survey was conducted to explore stakeholders' perspectives on the relevance and feasibility of actions and practices related to the implementation of VBC in the German healthcare system. Panellists were selected using purposive sampling. Two iterative online survey rounds were conducted which were preceded by a literature search and semi-structured interviews. After two survey rounds, a consensus was reached on 95% of the items in terms of relevance and on 89% of the items regarding feasibility. The expert panels' responses were in favor of the presented actions and practices of VBC in 98% of items for which consensus was found (n = 101). Opposition was present regarding the relevance of health care being provided preferably in one location for each indication. Additionally, the panel considered inter-sectoral joint budgets contingent on treatment outcomes achieved as not feasible. When planning the next steps in moving towards a value-based healthcare system, policymakers should take into account this study's results on stakeholders' perceptions of the relative importance and feasibility of VBC components. This ensures that regulatory changes are aligned with stakeholder values, facilitating greater acceptance and more successful implementation.

Data on Utility in Cost-Utility Analyses of Genetic Screen-and-Treat Strategies for Breast and Ovarian Cancer.

Genetic screen-and-treat strategies for the risk-reduction of breast cancer (BC) and ovarian cancer (OC) are often evaluated by cost-utility analyses (CUAs). This analysis compares data on health preferences (i.e., utility values) in CUAs of targeted genetic testing for BC and OC. Based on utilities applied in fourteen CUAs, data on utility including related assumptions were extracted for the health states: (i) genetic test, (ii) risk-reducing surgeries, (iii) BC/OC and (iv) post cancer. In addition, information about the sources of utility and the impact on the cost-effectiveness was extracted. Utility for CUAs relied on heterogeneous data and assumptions for all health states. The utility values ranged from 0.68 to 0.97 for risk-reducing surgeries, 0.6 to 0.85 for BC and 0.5 to 0.82 for OC. In two out of nine studies, considering the impact of the test result strongly affected the cost-effectiveness ratio. While in general utilities seem not to affect the cost-utility ratio, in future modeling studies the impact of a positive/negative test on utility should be considered mandatory. Women's health preferences, which may have changed as a result of improved oncologic care and genetic counselling, should be re-evaluated.

Resource dependency and strategy in healthcare organizations during a time of scarce resources: evidence from the metropolitan area of cologne.

PURPOSE: Healthcare systems are under pressure to improve their performance, while at the same time facing severe resource constraints, particularly workforce shortages. By applying resource-dependency-theory (RDT), we explore how healthcare organizations in different settings perceive pressure arising from uncertain access to resources and examine organizational strategies they deploy to secure resources. DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: A cross-sectional survey of key decision-makers in different healthcare settings in the metropolitan area of Cologne, Germany, on perceptions of pressure arising from the environment and respective strategies was conducted. For comparisons between settings radar charts, Kruskal-Wallis test and Fisher-Yates test were applied. Additionally, correlation analyses were conducted. FINDINGS: A sample of n = 237(13%) key informants participated and reported high pressure caused by bureaucracy, time constraints and recruiting qualified staff. Hospitals, inpatient and outpatient nursing care organizations felt most pressurized. As suggested by RDT, organizations in highly pressurized settings deployed the most vociferous strategies to secure resources, particularly in relation to personnel development. ORIGINALITY/VALUE: This study is one of the few studies that focuses on the environment's impact on healthcare organizations across a variety of settings. RDT is a helpful theoretical foundation for understanding the environment's impact on organizational strategies. The substantial variations found between healthcare settings indicate that those settings potentially require specific strategies when seeking to address scarce resources and high demands. The results draw attention to the high level of pressure on healthcare organizations which presumably is passed down to managers, healthcare professionals, patients and relatives.

Comparison of Patient and Proxy Assessment of Patient-Centeredness in the Care of Coronary Heart Disease: A Cross Sectional Survey Using the PACIC-S11.1.

INTRODUCTION: When making medical care more patient-centered, surveys on patients' and their relatives' experiences can be helpful in identifying opportunities for improvement. In cases where the targeted patients are unable to express their own perspective, for example, due to them being too young or suffering from severe impairments, proxies can serve as substitutes. Proxies are frequently used in care planning and consent. Nevertheless, it is unclear whether patients' assessments of how patient-centered their medical care is are similar to those of their proxies. This study aims to assess the level of consistency between patients' and their proxies' assessments using an adapted version of the Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC) short form questionnaire. METHODS: In a cross-sectional study, patients with coronary heart disease were recruited at cardiologists' offices, rehabilitation clinics and hospitals. Participants were surveyed with regard to the perceived level of patient-centeredness during their care using an adapted version of the German PACIC short form (PACIC-S11.1). Correlations in the assessments made by each patient and their respective proxy were analyzed. On the level of the patients group and the relatives group differences between mean ratings for each item were compared using paired t-tests. RESULTS: In total, 74 pairs of patients and proxies submitted the completed questionnaire. On the level of the individual patient/proxy pairs, no correlation, or significant but low correlation, was found between the ratings. On the group level, patients' and their proxies' item ratings were similar in the interpretation of averages, but still demonstrated statistically significant differences. Overall, patients rated their care as more patient-centered than their proxies did. CONCLUSION: The study shows that, on the individual level, proxies' ratings do not necessarily reflect the patients' assessment of PCC. On the group level, the assessments of relatives regarding PCC are similar to those of the patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: German clinical trials register (Deutsches Register Klinischer Studien, DRKS) Registration Number: DRKS00012434 (URL: https://www.drks.de/drks_web/navigate.do?navigationId=trial.HTML&TRIAL_ID=DRKS00012434).

Is Organizational Communication Climate a Precondition for Patient-Centered Care? Insights from a Key Informant Survey of Various Health and Social Care Organizations.

Health and social care organizations are under pressure of organizing care around patients' needs and preferences while complying with regulatory frameworks and constraint resources. To implement patient-centered care in health and social care organizations successfully, particular organizational preconditions need to be considered. Findings on the implementation of patient-centered care and its preconditions are rare and insufficiently account for the organizational context to explain differences. This study examines the implementation status of patient-centered care in diverse health and social care organizations and analyzes the communication climate as a precondition of successful implementation. In a cross-sectional postal key informant survey, decision makers in the highest leading positions from six different types of health and social care organizations in Cologne, Germany, were surveyed using a paper-pencil questionnaire. Patient-centered care implementation was operationalized by three categories (principles, activities, and enablers) including 15 dimensions. Organizational communication climate was operationalized by aspects of open and constructive communication, cooperation, and inclusion. Out of 1790 contacted organizations, 237 participated. In the analyses, 215 complete datasets were included. Descriptive analyses, Kruskal-Wallis test, post hoc pair-wise test, and linear regression modeling were performed. Results show that the implementation status of patient-centered care was perceived as high but differed between the various types of organizations and in terms of patient-centered care categories. Organizational communication climate was significantly associated with the implementation of patient-centered care. Especially in organizations with a higher number of employees, strategies to create a positive communication climate are needed to create a precondition for patient-centered care.

Patients' preferences for the treatment of anxiety and depressive disorders: a systematic review of discrete choice experiments.

Introduction: Matching available mental health services to patients' preferences, as well as is possible, may increase patient satisfaction and help increase adherence to certain treatments. This study systematically reviewed discrete-choice experiments (DCEs) on patients' preferences for treatment of depressive and anxiety disorders and assessed the relative importance of outcome, process and cost attributes to improve the current and future treatment situations.Methods: A systematic literature review using PubMed, EMBASE and PsychInfo was conducted to retrieve all relevant DCEs published up to 15 April 2019, eliciting patient preferences for treatment of depressive and anxiety disorders. Data were extracted using an extraction sheet, and attributes were classified into outcome, process and cost attributes. The relative importance of each attribute category was then assessed, and studies were evaluated according to their reporting quality, using validated checklists.Results: A total of 11 studies were identified for qualitative analysis. All studies received an aggregate score of 4 on the five-point PREFS checklist (Purpose, Respondents, Explanation, Findings and Significance). Most attributes were outcome related (52%), followed by process (42%) and cost (6%) attributes. Comparing the attribute categories and summing up the relative importance weights for each category within the studies, process attributes were ranked as most important, followed by cost and outcome attributes.Conclusions: In this systematic review, heterogeneous results were observed regarding the inclusion and framing of different attributes across studies. Overall, patients considered process and cost attributes to be more important than outcome attributes. Outcomes and process are important for patients, and thus clinicians should be particularly aware of this and take patients' preferences into account, although the attribute importance may depend on chosen attributes and related levels.

Patients' preferences in periodontal disease treatment elicited alongside an IQWiG benefit assessment: a feasibility study.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The German Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG) previously tested two preference elicitation methods in pilot projects and regarded them as generally feasible for prioritizing outcome-specific results of benefit assessment. The present study aimed to investigate the feasibility of completing a discrete choice experiment (DCE) within 3 months and to determine the relative importance of attributes of periodontal disease and its treatment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This preference elicitation was conducted alongside the IQWiG benefit assessment of systematic treatments of periodontal diseases. Attributes were defined based on the benefit assessment, literature review, and patients' and periodontologists' interviews. The DCE survey was completed by patients with a history of periodontal disease. Preferences were elicited for the attributes "tooth loss within next 10 years", "own costs for treatment, follow-up visits, re-treatment", "complaints and symptoms", and "frequency of follow-up visits". Patients completed a self-administered questionnaire including 12 choice tasks. Data were analyzed using a random parameters logit model. The relative attribute importance was calculated based on level ranges. RESULTS: Within 3 months, survey development, data collection among 267 patients, data analysis, and provision of a study report could be completed. The analysis showed that tooth loss (score 0.73) was the most important attribute in patients' decisions, followed by complaints and symptoms (0.22), frequency of follow-up visits (0.02), and costs (0.03) (relative importance scores summing up to 1). CONCLUSION: A preference analysis performing a DCE can be generally feasible within 3 months; however, a good research infrastructure and access to patients is required. Outcomes used in benefit assessments might need to be adapted to be used in preference analyses.

Characteristics of value-based health and social care from organisations' perspectives (OrgValue): a mixed-methods study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Health and social care systems are under pressure to organise care around patients' needs with constrained resources. Several studies reveal that care is constantly challenged by balancing economic requirements against individual patients' preferences and needs. Therefore, value-based health and social care aims to facilitate patient-centredness while taking the resources spent into consideration. The OrgValue project examines the implementation of patient-centredness while considering the health and social care organisations' resource orientation in the model region of the city of Cologne, Germany. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: First, the implementation status of patient-centredness as well as its facilitators and barriers-also in terms of resource orientation-will be assessed through face-to-face interviews with decision-makers (at least n=18) from health and social care organisations (HSCOs) in Cologne. Second, patients' understanding of patient-centredness and their preferences and needs will be revealed by conducting face-to-face interviews (at least n=15). Third, the qualitative results will provide the basis for a quantitative survey of decision-makers from all HSCOs in Cologne, which will include questions on patient-centredness, resource orientation and determinants of implementation. Fourth, qualitative interviews with decision-makers from different types of HSCOs will be conducted to develop a uniform measurement instrument on the cost and service structure of HSCOs. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: For all collected data, the relevant data protection regulations will be adhered to. Consultation and a positive vote from the ethics committee of the Medical Faculty of the University of Cologne have been obtained. All personal identifiers (eg, name, date of birth) will be pseudonymised. Dissemination strategies include a feedback report as well as research and development workshops for the organisations with the aim of initiating organisational learning and organisational development, presenting results in publications and at conferences, and public relations. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: DRKS00011925.

Patients' Preferences for Outcome, Process and Cost Attributes in Cancer Treatment: A Systematic Review of Discrete Choice Experiments.

INTRODUCTION: As several studies have been conducted to elicit patients' preferences for cancer treatment, it is important to provide an overview and synthesis of these studies. This study aimed to systematically review discrete choice experiments (DCEs) about patients' preferences for cancer treatment and assessed the relative importance of outcome, process and cost attributes. METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted using PubMed and EMBASE to identify all DCEs investigating patients' preferences for cancer treatment between January 2010 and April 2016. Data were extracted using a predefined extraction sheet, and a reporting quality assessment was applied to all studies. Attributes were classified into outcome, process and cost attributes, and their relative importance was assessed. RESULTS: A total of 28 DCEs were identified. More than half of the studies (56%) received an aggregate score lower than 4 on the PREFS (Purpose, Respondents, Explanation, Findings, Significance) 5-point scale. Most attributes were related to outcome (70%), followed by process (25%) and cost (5%). Outcome attributes were most often significant (81%), followed by process (73%) and cost (67%). The relative importance of outcome attributes was ranked highest in 82% of the cases where it was included, followed by cost (43%) and process (12%). CONCLUSION: This systematic review suggests that attributes related to cancer treatment outcomes are the most important for patients. Process and cost attributes were less often included in studies but were still (but less) important to patients in most studies. Clinicians and decision makers should be aware that attribute importance might be influenced by level selection for that attribute.

Focus Groups in Elderly Ophthalmologic Patients: Setting the Stage for Quantitative Preference Elicitation.

OBJECTIVES: Patients suffering from age-related macular degeneration (AMD) are rarely actively involved in decision-making, despite facing preference-sensitive treatment decisions. This paper presents a qualitative study to prepare quantitative preference elicitation in AMD patients. The aims of this study were (1) to gain familiarity with and learn about the special requirements of the AMD patient population for quantitative data collection; and (2) to select/refine patient-relevant treatment attributes and levels, and gain insights into preference structures. METHODS: Semi-structured focus group interviews were performed. An interview guide including preselected categories in the form of seven potentially patient-relevant treatment attributes was followed. To identify the most patient-relevant treatment attributes, a ranking exercise was performed. Deductive content analyses were done by two independent reviewers for each attribute to derive subcategories (potential levels of attributes) and depict preference trends. RESULTS: The focus group interviews included 21 patients. The interviews revealed that quantitative preference surveys in this population will have to be interviewer assisted to make the survey feasible for patients. The five most patient-relevant attributes were the effect on visual function [ranking score (RS): 139], injection frequency (RS: 101), approval status (RS: 83), side effects (RS: 79), and monitoring frequency (RS: 76). Attribute and level refinement was based on patients' statements. Preference trends and dependencies between attributes informed the quantitative instrument design. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that qualitative research is a very helpful step to prepare the design and administration of quantitative preference elicitation instruments. It especially facilitated familiarization with the target population and its preferences, and it supported attribute/level refinement.