Trade-offs between overall survival and side effects in the treatment of metastatic breast cancer: eliciting preferences of patients with primary and metastatic breast cancer using a discrete choice experiment.

OBJECTIVES: There has been a recent proliferation in treatment options for patients with metastatic breast cancer. Such treatments often involve trade-offs between overall survival and side effects. Our study aims to estimate the trade-offs that could be used to inform decision-making at the individual and policy level. DESIGN: We designed a discrete choice experiment (DCE) to look at preferences for avoiding severity levels of side effects when choosing treatment for metastatic breast cancer. Treatment attributes were: fatigue, nausea, diarrhoea, other side effects (peripheral neuropathy, hand-foot syndrome and mucositis) and urgent hospital admission and overall survival. Responses were analysed using an error component logit model. We estimated the relative importance of attributes and minimum acceptable survival for improvements in side effects. SETTING: The DCE was completed online by UK residents with self-reported diagnoses of breast cancer. PARTICIPANTS: 105 respondents participated, of which 72 patients had metastatic breast cancer and 33 patients had primary breast cancer. RESULTS: Overall survival had the largest relative importance, followed by other side effects, diarrhoea, nausea and fatigue. The risk of urgent hospital admission was not significant. While overall survival was the most important attribute, respondents were willing to forgo some absolute probability of overall survival for reductions in all Grade 2 side effects (12.02% for hand-foot syndrome, 11.01% for mucositis, 10.42% for peripheral neuropathy, 6.33% for diarrhoea and 3.62% for nausea). Grade 1 side effects were not significant, suggesting respondents have a general tolerance for them. CONCLUSIONS: Patients are willing to forgo overall survival to avoid particular severity levels of side effects. Our results have implications for data collected in research studies and can help inform person-centred care and shared decision-making.

Exploring doctors' trade-offs between management, research and clinical training in the medical curriculum: a protocol for a discrete choice experiment in Southern Africa.

INTRODUCTION: Medical curricula should prepare doctors for roles that extend beyond that of a clinician. But the formal inclusion of both management and research training still appear to be neglected. It is important to understand what the profession would be willing to give up in terms of clinical training time for management and research content teaching prior to making any changes in a medical curriculum. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A discrete choice experiment will elicit the preferences and trade-offs that medical doctors in Southern Africa are prepared to make about the management, research and clinical training. Attention will also be given to the teaching method and placement of the content. DCE data will be collected using an online survey with an estimated sample size of 368 medical doctors. Data regarding participants' preference for a traditional or revised curriculum will be assessed using the Resistance to Change-Beliefs (RC-B) scale and demographic information will also be collected to assess preference heterogeneity.Analysis of the DCE data will be based on the Random Utility Maximisation framework using variants of the multinomial logit model. Data quality will be assessed. Value will be estimated in terms of clinical time, that is, how much clinical training time medical doctors are willing to give up to have research and management training within a curriculum that has a maximum of 40 hours per week. Observed preference heterogeneity will be assessed using the RC-B scale data and characteristics of respondents. Latent class models will be used to test for unobserved heterogeneity. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The research ethics and institutional committees of the sites have approved the study. The survey includes an informed consent section. Study findings will be reported to the medical schools and papers will be submitted to peer-reviewed, accredited journals and higher education and health economic conferences.

Keeping an eye on cost: What can eye tracking tell us about attention to cost information in discrete choice experiments?

Concern has been expressed about including a cost attribute within discrete choice experiments (DCEs) when individuals do not have to pay at the point of consumption. We use eye tracking to investigate attention to cost when valuing publicly financed health care. One-hundred and four individuals completed a DCE concerned with preferences for UK general practitioner appointments: 51 responded to a DCE with cost included and 53 to the same DCE without cost. Eye-movements were tracked whilst respondents completed the DCE. We assessed if respondents pay attention to cost. We then compare fixation time (FT) on attributes, eye movement patterns and mental effort across the experimental groups. Results are encouraging for the inclusion of cost in DCEs valuing publicly provided healthcare. Most respondents gave visual attention to the cost attribute most of the time. Average FT on multi-attribute tasks increased by 44% in the cost DCE, with attention to non-monetary attributes increasing by 22%. Including cost led to more structured decision-making and did not increase mental effort. Acceptability of the cost attribute and difficulty of choice tasks were predictors of cost information processing, highlighting the importance of both motivating the cost attribute and considering difficulty of the tasks when developing DCEs.

Prioritization of THose aWaiting hip and knee ArthroplastY(PATHWAY): protocol for development of a stakeholder led clinical prioritization tool.

AIMS: The extended wait that most patients are now experiencing for hip and knee arthroplasty has raised questions about whether reliance on waiting time as the primary driver for prioritization is ethical, and if other additional factors should be included in determining surgical priority. Our Prioritization of THose aWaiting hip and knee ArthroplastY (PATHWAY) project will explore which perioperative factors are important to consider when prioritizing those on the waiting list for hip and knee arthroplasty, and how these factors should be weighted. The final product will include a weighted benefit score that can be used to aid in surgical prioritization for those awaiting elective primary hip and knee arthroplasty. METHODS: There will be two linked work packages focusing on opinion from key stakeholders (patients and surgeons). First, an online modified Delphi process to determine a consensus set of factors that should be involved in patient prioritization. This will be performed using standard Delphi methodology consisting of multiple rounds where following initial individual rating there is feedback, discussion, and further recommendations undertaken towards eventual consensus. The second stage will then consist of a Discrete Choice Experiment (DCE) to allow for priority setting of the factors derived from the Delphi through elicitation of weighted benefit scores. The DCE consists of several choice tasks designed to elicit stakeholder preference regarding included attributes (factors). RESULTS: The study is co-funded by the University of Aberdeen Knowledge Exchange Commission (Ref CF10693-29) and a Chief Scientist Office (CSO) Scotland Clinical Research Fellowship which runs from 08/2021 to 08/2024 (Grant ref: CAF/21/06). Approval from the University of Aberdeen Institute of Applied Health Sciences School Ethics Review Board was granted 22/03/2022 - Reference number SERB/2021/12/2210. CONCLUSION: The PATHWAY project provides the first attempt to use patient and surgeon opinions to develop a unified approach to prioritization for those awaiting hip and knee arthroplasty. Development of such a tool will provide more equitable access to arthroplasty services, as well as providing a framework for developing similar approaches in other areas of healthcare delivery.Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(10):753-758.

We know but we hope: A qualitative study of the opinions and experiences on the inclusion of management, health economics and research in the medical curriculum.

The achievement of global and national health goals requires a health workforce that is sufficient and trained. Despite considerable steps in medical education, the teaching of management, health economics and research skills for medical doctors are often neglected in medical curricula. This study explored the opinions and experiences of medical doctors and academic educationalists on the inclusion of management, health economics and research in the medical curriculum. A qualitative study was undertaken at four medical schools in Southern Africa (February to April 2021). The study population was medical doctors and academic educationalists. Semi-structured interviews with purposively sampled participants were conducted. All interviews were recorded and professionally transcribed. Constructivist grounded theory guided the analysis with the use of ATLAS.ti version 9.1.7.0 software. In total, 21 academic educationalists and 28 medical doctors were interviewed. In the first theme We know, participants acknowledged the constraints of medical schools but were adamant that management needed to be taught intentionally and explicitly. The teaching and assessment of management and health economics was generally reported to be ad hoc and unstructured. There was a desire that graduates are able to use, but not necessarily do research. In comparison to management and research, support for the inclusion of health economics in the curriculum was insignificant. Under We hope, educationalists hoped that the formal clinical teaching will somehow instil values and best practices of management and that medical doctors would become health advocates. Most participants wished that research training could be optimised, especially in relation to the duration of allocated time; the timing in the curriculum and the learning outcomes. Despite acknowledgement that management and research are topics that need to be taught, educationalists appeared to rely on chance to teach and assess management in particular. These qualitative study findings will be used to develop a discrete choice experiment to inform optimal curricula design.

The Baby Box scheme in Scotland: A study of public attitudes and social value.

BACKGROUND: The Scottish Government introduced a free Baby Box scheme for all new parents in 2017, modelled on the Finnish scheme, to give every baby 'an equal start in life'. There is little evidence that it results in better health outcomes, but there has been limited research into different perspectives and discourses on such schemes. METHODS: Four focus groups were conducted with 21 parents in North-East Scotland. Recordings were transcribed verbatim, anonymized and analysed thematically with NVivo 12 software. Our thematic analysis was both inductive and deductive-remaining open to themes identified by participants themselves but also informed by the social policy literature on universalism and social cohesion. RESULTS: Across all the focus groups, we found a high degree of positivity about the principle of the Baby Box scheme, and for the most part the practical value of the contents. This was remarkably consistent across different communities and backgrounds. There was little evidence of the strongly polarized views present in media reporting. Parents seemed considerably less focused than the media on safety and health outcomes, and more focused on practical, material and social impacts. They reported little in the way of feeling patronized or monitored by the government. CONCLUSION: Our findings have important implications for future economic evaluations of the baby box. Such evaluations should broaden the valuation space beyond health outcomes to allow for the value of feelings of inclusion, solidarity and being part of a community. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: This small project was designed in response to parent views already collected in the early roll-out of the Baby Box scheme in Scotland, about their priorities and responses to the scheme. Additional views were sought on the topic guide for the focus groups, and local community groups advised us on recruitment and the best timing and location for the focus groups to be held. The focus groups themselves were conducted as research, but with the intent of ensuring parent views featured more prominently in a debate that has been largely dominated by clinical and public health perspectives.

Using a discrete choice experiment to develop a decision aid tool to inform the management of persistent pain in pharmacy: a protocol for a randomised feasibility study.

INTRODUCTION: In an era of personalised healthcare, it has become increasingly important to elicit individual-level preferences. While discrete choice experiments (DCEs) are widely used to measure patient preferences in the delivery of healthcare, the focus has been sample-level analysis. Using the DCE methodology, this project has designed a digital decision aid tool (DAT) with the potential to estimate individual preferences in real time to inform clinical consultation decisions in persistent pain management. METHODS: Using a feasibility randomised control trial, this study aims to assess the feasibility of using this Understanding Persistent Pain (UPP) DAT in a pharmacy-based clinical setting and to test processes for a future definite randomised trial. Community and practice-based pharmacists (up to 10) will be recruited in The National Health Service (NHS) Grampian and trained in the use of the digital UPP DAT. Pharmacists will recruit up to 60 patients who are living with persistent pain. Patients will be randomised to one of two groups: using the UPP DAT or usual care. Pharmacists will follow-up patients as needed according to clinical need and following standard practice. DCE response data collected by the UPP DAT will be analysed using the penalised logit model, allowing estimation of individual preferences in real time. We will follow-up pharmacists and patients who use the UPP DAT to gather feedback on their experiences. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study received ethical approval from the North of Scotland Research Ethics Committee (21/NS/0059) and received Research & Development Management Permission to proceed from NHS Grampian (2021UA003E). The study has been registered in the ClinicalTrials.gov database. Findings will be disseminated in peer-reviewed publications, presentations and newsletters and made available in the University of Aberdeen and Pharmacy Research UK websites. Participants gave informed consent to participate in the study before taking part. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05102578; clinicaltrials.gov.

Public acceptability of non-pharmaceutical interventions to control a pandemic in the UK: a discrete choice experiment.

OBJECTIVE: To understand how individuals trade off between features of non-pharmaceutical interventions (eg, lockdowns) to control a pandemic across the four nations of the UK. DESIGN: A survey that included a discrete choice experiment. The survey design was informed using policy documents, social media analysis and input from remote think-aloud interviews with members of the public (n=23). SETTING: A nationwide survey across the four nations of the UK using an online panel between 29 October and 12 December 2020. PARTICIPANTS: Individuals who are over 18 years old. A total of 4120 adults completed the survey (1112 in England, 848 in Northern Ireland, 1143 in Scotland and 1098 in Wales). PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE: Adult's preferences for, and trade-offs between, type of lockdown restrictions, length of lockdown, postponement of routine healthcare, excess deaths, impact on the ability to buy things and unemployment. RESULTS: The majority of adults are willing to accept higher excess deaths if this means lockdowns that are less strict, shorter and do not postpone routine healthcare. On average, respondents in England were willing to accept a higher increase in excess deaths to have less strict lockdown restrictions introduced compared with Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales, respectively. In all four countries, one out of five respondents were willing to reduce excess deaths at all costs. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of the UK population is willing to accept the increase in excess deaths associated with introducing less strict lockdown restrictions. The acceptability of different restriction scenarios varies according to the features of the lockdown and across countries. Governments can use information about trade-off preferences to inform the introduction of different lockdown restriction levels and design compensation policies that maximise societal welfare.

Will the Public Engage with New Pharmacy Roles? Assessing Future Uptake of a Community Pharmacy Health Check Using a Discrete Choice Experiment.

BACKGROUND: Pharmacists are increasingly providing more clinically orientated services that focus on enhancing patient care and health promotion. However, little is known about how acceptable this is to the public. This study explored public preferences for a community pharmacy-based health check for cardiovascular disease (CVD). METHODS: A convenience sample of 423 individuals was recruited (from a community pharmacy, a dental practice, a shopping centre, a university campus and a sports centre) to complete a discrete choice experiment (DCE) survey administered face to face on a tablet. The DCE included six attributes: day of the week (weekday or weekends); way of accessing the service (walk-in and wait or by appointment); provider of health check (trainee pharmacist, pharmacist or nurse); duration of health check (30 or 45 min); follow-up phone call (no, yes and within 3 months); and cost (included to estimate the monetary value of health checks). Experimental design methods were used to create 12 choice tasks describing different health check services. Mixed logit (MXL) was used to analyse response data. RESULTS: Respondents had a preference for a community pharmacy-based CVD health check over no health check. They preferred a service provided (i) at the weekend; (ii) by appointment; (iii) by a nurse; (iv) for 30 min and (v) with follow-up after 3 months. Respondents were willing to pay £50 for this health check. CONCLUSION: Findings affirm the public's acceptance and value of a pharmacy-led CVD health check. The findings can inform pharmacy-based screening services before they are introduced, guide new service design and support resource allocation decisions.

Continuing the sequence? Towards an economic evaluation of whole genome sequencing for the diagnosis of rare diseases in Scotland.

Novel developments in genomic medicine may reduce the length of the diagnostic odyssey for patients with rare diseases. Health providers must thus decide whether to offer genome sequencing for the diagnosis of rare conditions in a routine clinical setting. We estimated the costs of singleton standard genetic testing and trio-based whole genome sequencing (WGS), in the context of the Scottish Genomes Partnership (SGP) study. We also explored what users value about genomic sequencing. Insights from the costing and value assessments will inform a subsequent economic evaluation of genomic medicine in Scotland. An average cost of £1,841 per singleton was estimated for the standard genetic testing pathway, with significant variability between phenotypes. WGS cost £6625 per family trio, but this estimate reflects the use of WGS during the SGP project and large cost savings may be realised if sequencing was scaled up. Patients and families valued (i) the chance of receiving a diagnosis (and the peace of mind and closure that brings); (ii) the information provided by WGS (including implications for family planning and secondary findings); and (iii) contributions to future research. Our costings will be updated to address limitations of the current study for incorporation in budget impact modelling and cost-effectiveness analysis (cost per diagnostic yield). Our insights into the benefits of WGS will guide the development of a discrete choice experiment valuation study. This will inform a user-perspective cost-benefit analysis of genome-wide sequencing, accounting for the broader non-health outcomes. Taken together, our research will inform the long-term strategic development of NHS Scotland clinical genetics testing services, and will be of benefit to others seeking to undertake similar evaluations in different contexts.

Won't you stay just a little bit longer? A discrete choice experiment of UK doctors' preferences for delaying retirement.

INTRODUCTION AND AIMS: Health systems around the world face difficulties retaining their workforce, which is exacerbated by the early retirement of experienced clinicians. This study aims to determine how to incentivise doctors to delay their retirement. METHODS: We used a discrete choice experiment to estimate the relative importance of job characteristics in doctors' willingness to delay retirement, and the number of extra years they were willing to delay retirement when job characteristics improved. 2885 British Medical Association members aged between 50 and 70 years, registered with the General Medical Council, practising in Scotland (in December 2019), and who had not started to draw a pension were invited. We compared the preferences of hospital doctors (HDs) and general practitioners (GPs). RESULTS: The response rate was 27.4% (n = 788). The number of extra years expected to work was the most important job characteristic for both respondents, followed by work intensity for GPs, whereas working hours and on-call were more important for HDs. Personalised working conditions and pension taxation were the least important characteristics for both groups. Setting all characteristics to their BEST levels, GPs would be willing to delay retirement by 4 years and HDs by 7 years. CONCLUSIONS: Characteristics related to the job rather than pension could have the greatest impact on delaying retirement among clinicians.

To pay or not to pay? Cost information processing in the valuation of publicly funded healthcare.

Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) commonly include a monetary attribute. This enables willingness to pay (WTP), a monetary measure of benefit, to be estimated for non-monetary attributes. There has been concern that the inclusion of a cost attribute challenges the credibility of the experiment when valuing publicly funded healthcare systems. However, very little research has explored this issue. Using a UK sample, we allocated participants across two versions of a DCE: one including a cost attribute and the other excluding a cost attribute. The DCE was identical in all other respects. We find no significant difference in response time across the two surveys, monotonicity was higher for the COST DCE and cost was stated as the most commonly ignored attribute in the COST DCE. Whilst the inclusion of a cost attribute did not alter the structure of preferences, it resulted in a lower level of choice consistency. Using an unrestricted latent class model, we find evidence of a credibility effect: respondents with experience of paying for health services and who perceive the choices as realistic are less likely to ignore cost. Further, respondents with a higher response time are less likely to be cost minimisers. Results are robust across different model specifications and choice formats. DCE practitioners should give due consideration to cost credibility when including a cost attribute, ensuring participants engage with the cost attribute. Ways to do this are suggested, including careful motivation of the cost attribute, consideration to the appropriate payment vehicle and careful consideration to the cost attribute when developing and piloting the survey. Failure to do this will result in an invalid willingness to pay estimates and thus policy recommendations.

Weighting or aggregating? Investigating information processing in multi-attribute choices.

Multi-attribute choices are commonly analyzed in economics to value goods and services. Analysis assumes individuals consider all attributes, making trade-offs between them. Such decision-making is cognitively demanding, often triggering alternative decision rules. We develop a new model where individuals aggregate multi-attribute information into meta-attributes. Applying our model to a choice experiment (CE) dataset, accounting for attribute aggregation (AA) improves model fit. The probability of adopting AA is greater for: homogenous attribute information; participants who had shorter response time and failed the dominance test; and for later located choices. Accounting for AA has implications for welfare estimates. Our results underline the importance of accounting for information processing rules when modelling multi-attribute choices.

Paid work, household work, or leisure? Time allocation pathways among women following a cancer diagnosis.

BACKGROUND: There is extensive evidence on the relationship between receiving a cancer diagnosis and labour market outcomes. However, there is limited evidence on the relationship between a cancer diagnosis and non-labour market outcomes such as household work, passive leisure and physical leisure. Furthermore, most current research focuses on time allocation at a given time point, ignoring both the life course perspective and long term effects. METHODS: Using data from the Australian Longitudinal Study on Women's Health (ALSWH), we observe time allocation for 91 women diagnosed with breast cancer and 486 women diagnosed with skin cancer, and 2711 women living without cancer. Our analysis is unique in combining sequence analysis and multivariate multinomial logit modelling. Using sequence analysis, we first analyse life-courses post a cancer diagnosis for paid work, household work, passive leisure and physical leisure from 2004 to 2016. Using multivariate multinomial logit modelling, we test whether a cancer diagnosis influences such life-courses. We consider the robustness of results to cancer severity and change in time allocation before and after a cancer diagnosis. RESULTS: We identify three clusters for paid work and two clusters for household work, passive leisure and physical leisure. Neither a breast cancer nor skin cancer diagnosis has a significant effect on the pathways of time allocation. Such results are robust to severity of diagnosis with 'cured' and 'non-cured' breast cancer, and skin cancer treated with and without 'chemotherapy or radiotherapy'. Women post a breast cancer diagnosis are less likely to maintain their pre-cancer's time use on paid work, household work and passive leisure; however, such effects are not significant. CONCLUSION: Being diagnosed with breast cancer or skin cancer has no significant long-term effect on the pathways of time allocation. Future work should explore the relationship between time allocation and wellbeing and the preference for time allocation.

Understanding public preferences and trade-offs for government responses during a pandemic: a protocol for a discrete choice experiment in the UK.

INTRODUCTION: Social distancing and lockdown measures are among the main government responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. These measures aim to limit the COVID-19 infection rate and reduce the mortality rate of COVID-19. Given we are likely to see local lockdowns until a treatment or vaccine for COVID-19 is available, and their effectiveness depends on public acceptability, it is important to understand public preference for government responses. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Using a discrete choice experiment (DCE), this study will investigate the public's preferences for pandemic responses in the UK. Attributes (and levels) are based on: (1) lockdown measures described in policy documents; (2) literature on preferences for lockdown measures and (3) a social media analysis. Attributes include: lockdown type; lockdown length; postponement of usual non-urgent medical care; number of excess deaths; number of infections; impact on household spending and job losses. We will prepilot the DCE using virtual think aloud interviews with respondents recruited via Facebook. We will collect preference data using an online survey of 4000 individuals from across the four UK countries (1000 per country). We will estimate the relative importance of the attributes, and the trade-offs individuals are willing to make between attributes. We will test if respondents' preferences differ based on moral attitudes (using the Moral Foundation Questionnaire), socioeconomic circumstances (age, education, economic insecurity, health status), country of residence and experience of COVID-19. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The University of Aberdeen's College Ethics Research Board (CERB) has approved the study (reference: CERB/2020/6/1974). We will seek CERB approval for major changes from the developmental and pilot work. Peer-reviewed papers will be submitted, and results will be presented at public health and health economic conferences nationally and internationally. A lay summary will be published on the Health Economics Research Unit blog.

Survey modes comparison in contingent valuation: Internet panels and mail surveys.

Stated preferences methods are extensively applied in health economics to elicit preferences. Although mailed surveys were commonly used to collect data, internet panel (IP) surveys are being increasingly used. This raises questions about the validity of responses and estimated willingness-to-pay (WTP) values generated from IP surveys. We conduct the first study in health to compare a contingent valuation IP survey with a mailed survey using the electoral roll. Our IP has a higher response rate and lower item missing response rate. The difference is reduced but remains when restricting comparisons with valid WTPs. Sample characteristics differ, with significant differences between modes for gender, age, income, and attitudes and knowledge. Although difference in WTP values exist, with the IP resulting in higher values, we find limited evidence that such differences are statistically significant. The mail survey has lower initial cost per response; however, once restricting samples to valid WTP responses with nonmissing respondent information, the cost per response across modes is similar. Our results, suggesting that IPs generate valid and cost-effective values, are encouraging as researchers move increasingly to IPs to collect preference data.

Mode and Frame Matter: Assessing the Impact of Survey Mode and Sample Frame in Choice Experiments.

Background. Choice experiments (CE) are applied in health economics to elicit public preferences and willingness to pay (WTP). CEs are frequently administered as Internet-based surveys. Internet surveys have recognized advantages, but concerns exist about the representativeness of Internet samples, data quality, and the impact on elicited values. Aim. We conducted the first study in health comparing an Internet-based CE survey with the more traditional general population mail survey. We also compared the Internet-based and mail CE surveys with computer-assisted personal interviews (CAPIs), which are commonly used to elicit health state valuations. Methods. Two separate samples were drawn from 2 United Kingdom (UK) volunteer Internet panels (IPs), CAPIs were undertaken with respondents sampled from UK Census Output Areas, and mail surveys were sent to UK households drawn from the postcode address file (PAF). Each mode received more than 1000 respondents. We compared modes and frames using objective measures (response rate, sample representativeness of the UK population, elicited values, theoretical validity, and cost per response) and subjective/self-reported measures (time taken to complete the study, perceived study consequentiality, and stated attribute nonattendance). This study intentionally confounded the survey modes and sample frame by choosing sample frames that are typically used by researchers for each mode. Results. Estimated WTP differs across mode-frame pairs. On most measures, CAPIs dominated. They are more expensive, however. On all measures, except response rates, Internet surveys dominated the mail survey. They were also cheaper. Conclusion. Researchers using IPs should pay attention to response rates and be aware that the quality of IPs differs. Given the importance of perceived consequentiality and attribute attendance in CEs, future research should address their impact across modes and frames.

U.K. Intensivists' Preferences for Patient Admission to ICU: Evidence From a Choice Experiment.

OBJECTIVES: Deciding whether to admit a patient to the ICU requires considering several clinical and nonclinical factors. Studies have investigated factors associated with the decision but have not explored the relative importance of different factors, nor the interaction between factors on decision-making. We examined how ICU consultants prioritize specific factors when deciding whether to admit a patient to ICU. DESIGN: Informed by a literature review and data from observation and interviews with ICU clinicians, we designed a choice experiment. Senior intensive care doctors (consultants) were presented with pairs of patient profiles and asked to prioritize one of the patients in each task for admission to ICU. A multinomial logit and a latent class logit model was used for the data analyses. SETTING: Online survey across U.K. intensive care. SUBJECTS: Intensive care consultants working in NHS hospitals. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Of the factors investigated, patient's age had the largest impact at admission followed by the views of their family, and severity of their main comorbidity. Physiologic measures indicating severity of illness had less impact than the gestalt assessment by the ICU registrar. We identified four distinct decision-making patterns, defined by the relative importance given to different factors. CONCLUSIONS: ICU consultants vary in the importance they give to different factors in deciding who to prioritize for ICU admission. Transparency regarding which factors have been considered in the decision-making process could reduce variability and potential inequity for patients.

For more than money: willingness of health professionals to stay in remote Senegal.

BACKGROUND: Poor distribution of already inadequate numbers of health professionals seriously constrains equitable access to health services in low- and middle-income countries. The Senegalese Government is currently developing policy to encourage health professionals to remain in areas defined as 'difficult'. Understanding health professional's preferences is crucial for this policy development. METHODS: Working with the Senegalese Government, a choice experiment (CE) was developed to elicit the job preferences of physicians and non-physicians. Attributes were defined using a novel mixed-methods approach, combining interviews and best-worst scaling (Case 1). Six attributes were categorised as 'individual (extrinsic) incentive' attributes ('type of contract', 'provision of training opportunities', 'provision of an allowance' and 'provision of accommodation') or 'functioning health system' attributes ('availability of basic equipment in health facilities' and 'provision of supportive supervision by health administrators'). Using face-to-face interviews, the CE was administered to 55 physicians (3909 observations) and 246 non-physicians (17 961 observations) randomly selected from those working in eight 'difficult' regions in Senegal. Conditional logit was used to analyse responses. This is the first CE to both explore the impact of contract type on rural retention and to estimate value of attributes in terms of willingness to stay (WTS) in current rural post. RESULTS: For both physicians and non-physicians, a permanent contract is the most important determinant of rural job retention, followed by availability of equipment and provision of training opportunities. Retention probabilities suggest that policy reform affecting only a single attribute is unlikely to encourage health professionals to remain in 'difficult' regions. The relative importance of an allowance is low; however, the level of such financial incentives requires further investigation. CONCLUSION: Contract type is a key factor impacting on retention. This has led the Senegalese Health Ministry to introduce a new rural assignment policy that recruits permanent staff from the pool of annually contracted healthcare professionals on the condition that they take up rural posts. While this is a useful policy development, further efforts to retain rural health workers, considering both personal incentives and the functioning of health systems, are necessary to ensure health worker numbers are adequate to meet the needs of rural communities.