Heterogeneity in preferences for outcomes of integrated care for persons with multiple chronic diseases: a latent class analysis of a discrete choice experiment.

PURPOSE: For an integrated care programme to be successful, preferences of the stakeholders involved should be aligned. The aim of this study is to investigate to which extent outcomes beyond health are valued and to study the heterogeneity of preferences of those involved in integrated care. METHODS: A discrete choice experiment (DCE) was conducted to elicit preferences for eight Triple Aim outcomes, i.e., physical functioning, psychological well-being, social relationships & participation, enjoyment of life, resilience, person-centeredness, continuity of care and total health and social care costs. Stakeholders were recruited among Dutch persons with multi-morbidity, informal caregivers, professionals, payers, and policymakers. A Bayesian mixed-logit model was used to analyse the data. Subsequently, a latent class analysis was performed to identify stakeholders with similar preferences. RESULTS: 739 stakeholders completed the DCE. Enjoyment of life was perceived as the most important outcome (relative importance: 0.221) across stakeholders, while total health and social care costs were perceived as least important (0.063). The latent class analysis identified four classes. The first class (19.9%) put most weight on experience with care outcomes. The second class (39%) favoured enjoyment of life. The third class (18%) focused relatively more on physical health. The fourth class (24%) had the least consistent preferences. CONCLUSION: This study has highlighted the heterogeneity in views of stakeholders in integrated care on what is important in health(care) for persons with multi-morbidity. To accurately value integrated care a variety of outcomes beyond health-e.g., enjoyment of life and experience with care-should be taken into account.

Comparing patients' and other stakeholders' preferences for outcomes of integrated care for multimorbidity: a discrete choice experiment in eight European countries.

OBJECTIVES: To measure relative preferences for outcomes of integrated care of patients with multimorbidity from eight European countries and compare them to the preferences of other stakeholders within these countries. DESIGN: A discrete choice experiment (DCE) was conducted in each country, asking respondents to choose between two integrated care programmes for persons with multimorbidity. SETTING: Preference data collected in Austria (AT), Croatia (HR), Germany (DE), Hungary (HU), the Netherlands (NL), Norway (NO), Spain (ES), and UK. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with multimorbidity, partners and other informal caregivers, professionals, payers and policymakers. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Preferences of participants regarding outcomes of integrated care described as health/well-being, experience with care and cost outcomes, that is, physical functioning, psychological well-being, social relationships and participation, enjoyment of life, resilience, person-centredness, continuity of care and total costs. Each outcome had three levels of performance. RESULTS: 5122 respondents completed the DCE. In all countries, patients with multimorbidity, as well as most other stakeholder groups, assigned the (second) highest preference to enjoyment of life. The patients top-three most frequently included physical functioning, psychological well-being and continuity of care. Continuity of care also entered the top-three of professionals, payers and policymakers in four countries (AT, DE, HR and HU). Of the five stakeholder groups, preferences of professionals differed most often from preferences of patients. Professionals assigned lower weights to physical functioning in AT, DE, ES, NL and NO and higher weights to person-centredness in AT, DE, ES and HU. Payers and policymakers assigned higher weights than patients to costs, but these weights were relatively low. CONCLUSION: The well-being outcome enjoyment of life is the most important outcome of integrated care in multimorbidity. This calls for a greater involvement of social and mental care providers. The difference in opinion between patients and professionals calls for shared decision-making, whereby efforts to improve well-being and person-centredness should not divert attention from improving physical functioning.

Advocating a Paradigm Shift in Health-State Valuations: The Estimation of Time-Preference Corrected QALY Tariffs.

BACKGROUND: Despite evidence of nonproportional trade-offs in time trade-off exercises and the explicit incorporation of exponential discounting in health technology assessment calculations, quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) tariffs are currently still established under the assumption of linear time preferences. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to introduce a general method of accommodating for nonlinear time preferences in discrete choice experiment (DCE) duration studies and to evaluate its impact on estimated QALY tariffs. METHODS: A parsimonious utility function is proposed that accommodates any discounting function and preserves linear time preferences as a special case. Based on an efficient DCE design and 1775 respondents from a nationally representative scientific household panel, preferences and QALY tariffs for the Dutch SF-6D were estimated while accommodating for nonlinear time preferences via exponential and hyperbolic discounting functions. RESULTS: When the discount rate was estimated directly, we found strong evidence of nonlinear time preferences (with an exponential and hyperbolic discount rate of 5.7% and 16.5%, respectively). When the discount rate was estimated as a function of health state severity, we found that years lived in better health states are discounted minus years lived in impaired health states. Finally, the best statistical fit was obtained when using a hyperbolic discount function, which resulted in smaller QALY decrements and fewer health states classified as worse than immediate death. CONCLUSIONS: Our results highlight the relevance and even necessity of a paradigm shift in health valuation studies in favor of time-preference corrected QALY tariffs, with potentially important implications for health technology assessment calculations and regulatory decisions.