Investigating the complementary value of discrete choice experiments for the evaluation of barriers and facilitators in implementation research: a questionnaire survey

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The potential barriers and facilitators to change should guide the choice of implementation strategy. Implementation researchers believe that existing methods for the evaluation of potential barriers and facilitators are not satisfactory. Discrete choice experiments (DCE) are relatively new in the health care sector to investigate preferences, and may be of value in the field of implementation research. The objective of our study was to investigate the complementary value of DCE for the evaluation of barriers and facilitators in implementation research.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Clinical subject was the implementation of the guideline for breast cancer surgery in day care. We identified 17 potential barriers and facilitators to the implementation of this guideline. We used a traditional questionnaire that was made up of statements about the potential barriers and facilitators. Respondents answered 17 statements on a five-point scale ranging from one (fully disagree) to five (fully agree). The potential barriers and facilitators were included in the DCE as decision attributes. Data were gathered among anaesthesiologists, surgical oncologists, and breast care nurses by means of a paper-and-pencil questionnaire.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The overall response was 10%. The most striking finding was that the responses to the traditional questionnaire hardly differentiated between barriers. Forty-seven percent of the respondents thought that DCE is an inappropriate method. These respondents considered DCE too difficult and too time-consuming. Unlike the traditional questionnaire, the results of a DCE provide implementation researchers and clinicians with a relative attribute importance ranking that can be used to prioritize potential barriers and facilitators to change, and hence to better fine-tune the implementation strategies to the specific problems and challenges of a particular implementation process.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The results of our DCE and traditional questionnaire would probably lead to different implementation strategies. Although there is no 'gold standard' for prioritising potential barriers and facilitators to the implementation of change, theoretically, DCE would be the method of choice. However, the feasibility of using DCE was less favourable. Further empirical applications should investigate whether DCE can really make a valuable contribution to the implementation science.</p

A comparison between willingness to pay and willingness to give up time

Cost-benefit analysis, Willingness-to-pay, Utilities and preferences, Health economics, D61, I19,

Does the Inclusion of a Cost Attribute Result in Different Preferences for the Surgical Treatment of Primary Basal Cell Carcinoma?: A Comparison of Two Discrete-Choice Experiments

Background: Nowadays, an increasing number of discrete-choice experiments (DCEs) incorporate cost as an attribute. However, the inclusion of a cost attribute, particularly within collectively funded healthcare systems, can be challenging because health services or goods are generally not traded in a market situation and individuals are not used to paying for a service or a good at the point of consumption. Objective: To examine whether the inclusion of a cost attribute in a DCE results in different preferences regarding a surgical treatment for primary basal cell carcinoma (BCC) compared with a DCE without a cost attribute. Methods: A randomized study was performed in which the impact of a cost attribute on the general public's preferences for a surgical treatment (Mohs micrographic surgery &lsqb;MMS&rsqb; or standard excision &lsqb;SE&rsqb;) to remove BCC was examined. This was done by comparing the outcomes of two DCEs, one with a cost attribute (DCE_cost) and one without (DCE_nocost). Six attributes (recurrence, re-excision, travel time, surgical time, waiting time for surgical results, costs) and their levels were selected, based on results of a clinical trial, a cost-effectiveness study, a review and a focus group of patients who had recently received treatment for BCC. Outcomes of both DCEs were compared in terms of theoretical validity, relative importance of the attributes and the rank order of preferences. Results: A total of 615 respondents (n - 303 for DCE_nocost; n - 312 for DCE_cost) were interviewed by telephone. This gave an overall response rate of 38%.  Respondents in DCE_nocost preferred a surgical treatment with a lower probability of recurrence, lower surgery time, lower waiting time and no risk for a re-excision. Respondents in DCE_cost showed the same preferences, but also preferred a treatment with less travel time and lower costs. Overall, respondents in both DCEs showed the same preference for a surgical treatment: MMS was preferred over SE. Conclusion: Results suggest that, in this population, the inclusion of a cost attribute in a DCE leads to the same preference regarding a surgical treatment to remove BCC as a DCE without a cost attribute. However, further research in different settings is needed to confirm these findings.Basal-cell-cancer, treatment, Conjoint-analysis, Patient-preference, Surgery

Side-effects of antiepileptic drugs: The economic burden

AbstractPurposeAntiepileptic drugs are a potentially effective treatment for epilepsy. Side-effects are, however, common and the negative consequences necessitate treatment ranging from minor interventions to very expensive hospitalization. This analysis has been conducted to provide insight into the costs of side-effects due to antiepileptic drugs in The Netherlands from a societal perspective.MethodResources allocated to care (grouped according to health, patient and family and other) for five different categories of side-effect were measured using a questionnaire. Standard cost prices were derived from the Dutch costing manual. Chronic epilepsy patients were invited to complete the questionnaire if they had experienced side-effects during the previous 12 months.ResultsBased on data from 203 patients, the total societal costs of common side-effects in 2012 are estimated to be €20,751 CI:15,049–27,196 (US$26,675 CI:19,345–34,960) per patient per year. These consist of: health care costs (mean €4458; US$5731), patient and family costs (i.e. informal care, mean €10,526; US$13,531) and other costs (i.e. productivity losses, mean €5761; US$7406). Examining the different categories of side-effects separately, ranging from the most to the least expensive category, the cost estimates per patient per year were as follows: other (mean €13,228; US$17,005), behavioral (mean €9689; US$12,455), general health (mean €7454; US$9582), cognitive (mean €7285; US$9365) and cosmetic side-effects (mean €2845; US$3657). Subgroup analyses showed significant differences in costs between patients using monotherapy and those using polytherapy when looking at cognitive and cosmetic side-effects.ConclusionThese estimates should be considered in the overall assessment of the economic impact of a pharmacotherapy

Willingness to Accept versus Willingness to Pay in a Discrete Choice Experiment

AbstractObjectivesOur main objective was to compare willingness to accept (WTA) and willingness to pay (WTP) in a discrete choice experiment on hearing aid provision. Additionally, income effect and endowment effect were explored as possible explanations for the disparity between WTA and WTP, and the impact of using a WTA and/or WTP format to elicit monetary valuations on the net benefit of the new organization of hearing aid provision was examined.MethodsChoice sets were based on five attributes: performer of the initial assessment; accuracy of the initial assessment; duration of the pathway; follow-up at the ear, nose, and throat specialist; and costs. Persons with hearing complaints randomly received a WTP (costs defined as extra payment) or WTA (costs defined as discount) version of the experiment. In the versions, except for the cost attribute, all choice sets were equal.ResultsThe cost coefficient was statistically significantly higher in the WTP format. Marginal WTA was statistically significantly higher than marginal WTP for the attributes accuracy and follow-up. Disparity was higher in the high educational (as proxy for income) group. We did not find proof of an experience endowment effect. Implementing the new intervention would only be recommended when using WTP.ConclusionsWTA exceeds WTP, also in a discrete choice experiment. As this affects monetary valuations, more research on when to use a payment or a discount in the cost attribute is needed before discrete choice results can be used in cost-benefit analyses