Stakeholders' preferences for the design and delivery of virtual care services: A systematic review of discrete choice experiments.

This systematic review aimed to synthesise evidence from discrete choice experiments (DCEs) eliciting preferences for virtual models of care, as well as to assess the quality of those DCEs and compare the relative preferences for different stakeholder groups. Articles were included if published between January 2010 and December 2022. Data were synthesised narratively, and attributes were assessed for frequency, significance, and relative importance using a semi-quantitative approach. Overall, 21 studies were included encompassing a wide range of virtual care modalities, with the most common setting being virtual consultations for outpatient management of chronic conditions. A total of 135 attributes were identified and thematically classified into six categories: service delivery, service quality, technical aspects, monetary aspects, health provider characteristics and health consumer characteristics. Attributes related to service delivery were most frequently reported but less highly ranked. Service costs were consistently significant across all studies where they appeared, indicating their importance to the respondents. All studies examining health providers' preferences reported either system performance or professional endorsement attributes to be the most important. Substantial heterogeneity in attribute selection and preference outcomes were observed across studies reporting on health consumers' preferences, suggesting that the consideration of local context is important in the design and delivery of person-centred virtual care services. In general, the experimental design and analysis methods of included studies were clearly reported and justified. An improvement was observed in the quality of DCE design and analysis in recent years, particularly in the attribute development process. Given the continued growth in the use of DCEs within healthcare settings, further research is needed to develop a standardised approach for quantitatively synthesising DCE findings. There is also a need for further research on preferences for virtual care in post-pandemic contexts, where emerging evidence suggests that preferences may differ to those observed in pre-pandemic times.

From pilot to a multi-site trial: refining the Early Detection of Deterioration in Elderly Residents (EDDIE +) intervention.

BACKGROUND: Early Detection of Deterioration in Elderly Residents (EDDIE +) is a multi-modal intervention focused on empowering nursing and personal care workers to identify and proactively manage deterioration of residents living in residential aged care (RAC) homes. Building on successful pilot trials conducted between 2014 and 2017, the intervention was refined for implementation in a stepped-wedge cluster randomised trial in 12 RAC homes from March 2021 to May 2022. We report the process used to transition from a small-scale pilot intervention to a multi-site intervention, detailing the intervention to enable future replication. METHODS: The EDDIE + intervention used the integrated Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (i-PARIHS) framework to guide the intervention development and refinement process. We conducted an environmental scan; multi-level context assessments; convened an intervention working group (IWG) to develop the program logic, conducted a sustainability assessment and deconstructed the intervention components into fixed and adaptable elements; and subsequently refined the intervention for trial. RESULTS: The original EDDIE pilot intervention included four components: nurse and personal care worker education; decision support tools; diagnostic equipment; and facilitation and clinical support. Deconstructing the intervention into core components and what could be flexibly tailored to context was essential for refining the intervention and informing future implementation across multiple sites. Intervention elements considered unsustainable were updated and refined to enable their scalability. Refinements included: an enhanced educational component with a greater focus on personal care workers and interactive learning; decision support tools that were based on updated evidence; equipment that aligned with recipient needs and available organisational support; and updated facilitation model with local and external facilitation. CONCLUSION: By using the i-PARIHS framework in the scale-up process, the EDDIE + intervention was tailored to fit the needs of intended recipients and contexts, enabling flexibility for local adaptation. The process of transitioning from a pilot to larger scale implementation in practice is vastly underreported yet vital for better development and implementation of multi-component interventions across multiple sites. We provide an example using an implementation framework and show it can be advantageous to researchers and health practitioners from pilot stage to refinement, through to larger scale implementation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial was prospectively registered with the Australia New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry (ACTRN12620000507987, registered 23/04/2020).

A discrete choice experiment to elicit preferences for a liver screening programme in Queensland, Australia: a mixed methods study to select attributes and levels.

BACKGROUND: In Australia, the overall prevalence of liver disease is increasing. Maximising uptake of community screening programmes by understanding patient preferences is integral to developing consumer-centred care models for liver disease. Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) are widely used to elicit preferences for various healthcare services. Attribute development is a vital component of a well-designed DCE and should be described in sufficient detail for others to assess the validity of outcomes. Hence, this study aimed to create a list of potential attributes and levels which can be used in a DCE study to elicit preferences for chronic liver disease screening programmes. METHODS: Key attributes were developed through a multi-stage, mixed methods design. Focus groups were held with consumers and health care providers on attributes of community screening programmes for liver disease. Stakeholders then prioritised attributes generated from the focus group in order of importance via an online prioritisation survey. The outcomes of the prioritisation exercise were then reviewed and refined by an expert panel to ensure clinically meaningful levels and relevance for a DCE survey. RESULTS: Fifteen attributes were generated during the focus group sessions deemed necessary to design liver disease screening services. Outcomes of the prioritisation exercise and expert panel stages recognised five attributes, with three levels each, for inclusion in a DCE survey to elicit consumer preferences for community screening for liver disease. This study also highlights broader social issues such as the stigma around liver disease that require careful consideration by policy makers when designing or implementing a liver screening programme. CONCLUSIONS: The attributes and levels identified will inform future DCE surveys to understand consumer preferences for community screening programmes for liver disease. In addition, the outcomes will help inform the implementation of the LOCATE-NAFLD programme in real-world practice, and could be relevant for other liver and non-liver related chronic disease screening programmes.

Alternative Reimbursement Models for Health Providers in High-Performance Sport: Stakeholder Experiences and Perceptions.

BACKGROUND: Value-based healthcare provider reimbursement models have been proposed as an alternative to traditional fee-for-service arrangements that can align financial reimbursement more closely to the outcomes of value to patients and society. This study aimed to investigate stakeholder perceptions and experiences of different reimbursement systems for healthcare providers in high-performance sport, with a focus on fee-for-service versus salaried provider models. METHODS: Three in-depth semi-structured focus group discussions and one individual interview were conducted with key stakeholders across the Australian high-performance sport system. Participants included healthcare providers, health managers, sports managers and executive personnel. An interview guide was developed using the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, Sustainment framework, with key themes deductively mapped to the innovation, inner context and outer context domains. A total of 16 stakeholders participated in a focus group discussion or interview. RESULTS: Participants identified several key advantages of salaried provider models over fee-for-service arrangements, including: the potential for more proactive and preventive models of care; enhanced inter-disciplinary collaboration; and the ability for providers to have a deeper understanding of context and how their role aligns with a broader set of priorities for an athlete and the organisation. Noted challenges of salaried provider models included the potential for providers to revert to reactive care delivery when not afforded adequate capacity to provide services, and difficulties for providers in demonstrating and quantifying the value of their work. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that high-performance sporting organisations seeking to improve primary prevention and multidisciplinary care should consider salaried provider arrangements. Further research to confirm these findings using prospective, experimental study designs remains a priority.