9
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Discrete‐choice experiment to analyse preferences for centralizing specialist cancer surgery services

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Centralizing specialist cancer surgery services aims to reduce variations in quality of care and improve patient outcomes, but increases travel demands on patients and families. This study aimed to evaluate preferences of patients, health professionals and members of the public for the characteristics associated with centralization.

          Methods

          A discrete‐choice experiment was conducted, using paper and electronic surveys. Participants comprised: former and current patients (at any stage of treatment) with prostate, bladder, kidney or oesophagogastric cancer who previously participated in the National Cancer Patient Experience Survey; health professionals with experience of cancer care (11 types including surgeons, nurses and oncologists); and members of the public. Choice scenarios were based on the following attributes: travel time to hospital, risk of serious complications, risk of death, annual number of operations at the centre, access to a specialist multidisciplinary team (MDT) and specialist surgeon cover after surgery.

          Results

          Responses were obtained from 444 individuals (206 patients, 111 health professionals and 127 members of the public). The response rate was 52·8 per cent for the patient sample; it was unknown for the other groups as the survey was distributed via multiple overlapping methods. Preferences were particularly influenced by risk of complications, risk of death and access to a specialist MDT. Participants were willing to travel, on average, 75 min longer in order to reduce their risk of complications by 1 per cent, and over 5 h longer to reduce risk of death by 1 per cent. Findings were similar across groups.

          Conclusion

          Respondents' preferences in this selected sample were consistent with centralization.

          Abstract

          Most favour it

          Related collections

          Most cited references30

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            A national evaluation of the effect of trauma-center care on mortality.

            Hospitals have difficulty justifying the expense of maintaining trauma centers without strong evidence of their effectiveness. To address this gap, we examined differences in mortality between level 1 trauma centers and hospitals without a trauma center (non-trauma centers). Mortality outcomes were compared among patients treated in 18 hospitals with a level 1 trauma center and 51 hospitals non-trauma centers located in 14 states. Patients 18 to 84 years old with a moderate-to-severe injury were eligible. Complete data were obtained for 1104 patients who died in the hospital and 4087 patients who were discharged alive. We used propensity-score weighting to adjust for observable differences between patients treated at trauma centers and those treated at non-trauma centers. After adjustment for differences in the case mix, the in-hospital mortality rate was significantly lower at trauma centers than at non-trauma centers (7.6 percent vs. 9.5 percent; relative risk, 0.80; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.66 to 0.98), as was the one-year mortality rate (10.4 percent vs. 13.8 percent; relative risk, 0.75; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.60 to 0.95). The effects of treatment at a trauma center varied according to the severity of injury, with evidence to suggest that differences in mortality rates were primarily confined to patients with more severe injuries. Our findings show that the risk of death is significantly lower when care is provided in a trauma center than in a non-trauma center and argue for continued efforts at regionalization. Copyright 2006 Massachusetts Medical Society.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Conjoint analysis applications in health--a checklist: a report of the ISPOR Good Research Practices for Conjoint Analysis Task Force.

              The application of conjoint analysis (including discrete-choice experiments and other multiattribute stated-preference methods) in health has increased rapidly over the past decade. A wider acceptance of these methods is limited by an absence of consensus-based methodological standards. The International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) Good Research Practices for Conjoint Analysis Task Force was established to identify good research practices for conjoint-analysis applications in health. The task force met regularly to identify the important steps in a conjoint analysis, to discuss good research practices for conjoint analysis, and to develop and refine the key criteria for identifying good research practices. ISPOR members contributed to this process through an extensive consultation process. A final consensus meeting was held to revise the article using these comments, and those of a number of international reviewers. Task force findings are presented as a 10-item checklist covering: 1) research question; 2) attributes and levels; 3) construction of tasks; 4) experimental design; 5) preference elicitation; 6) instrument design; 7) data-collection plan; 8) statistical analyses; 9) results and conclusions; and 10) study presentation. A primary question relating to each of the 10 items is posed, and three sub-questions examine finer issues within items. Although the checklist should not be interpreted as endorsing any specific methodological approach to conjoint analysis, it can facilitate future training activities and discussions of good research practices for the application of conjoint-analysis methods in health care studies. Copyright © 2011 International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                steve.morris@ucl.ac.uk
                Journal
                Br J Surg
                Br J Surg
                10.1002/(ISSN)1365-2168
                BJS
                The British Journal of Surgery
                John Wiley & Sons, Ltd (Chichester, UK )
                0007-1323
                1365-2168
                07 March 2018
                April 2018
                : 105
                : 5 ( doiID: 10.1002/bjs.2018.105.issue-5 )
                : 587-596
                Affiliations
                [ 1 ] Department of Applied Health Research University College London London UK
                [ 2 ] Research Department of Primary Care and Population Health University College London London UK
                [ 3 ] Department of Renal and Nephrology Services Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust London UK
                [ 4 ] Urology Department University College London Hospital London UK
                [ 5 ] University College London Hospitals Cancer Collaborative, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust London UK
                [ 6 ] Academic Health Science Network Cancer Programme, University College London Partners London UK
                [ 7 ] Department of Urology Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust Salford UK
                [ 8 ] Alliance Manchester Business School University of Manchester Manchester UK
                [ 9 ] Greater Manchester Cancer, hosted by Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Christie Hospital Manchester UK
                [ 10 ] Department of Quantitative Methods in Economics and Management University of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria Gran Canaria Spain
                Author notes
                [*] [* ] Correspondence to: Professor S. Morris, Department of Applied Health Research, University College London, 1–19 Torrington Place, London WC1E 7HB, UK (e‐mail: steve.morris@ 123456ucl.ac.uk ; @LVallejoTorres, @RESPECT21Cancer)
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5833-6066
                Article
                BJS10761
                10.1002/bjs.10761
                5900867
                29512137
                852435f6-4155-4df0-9ce9-4ae283b010a0
                © 2018 The Authors. BJS published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of BJS Society Ltd.

                This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.

                History
                : 18 May 2017
                : 19 October 2017
                : 20 October 2017
                Page count
                Figures: 3, Tables: 4, Pages: 10, Words: 5611
                Funding
                Funded by: Health Services and Delivery Research Programme
                Award ID: 14/46/19
                Categories
                Original Article
                Original Articles
                Custom metadata
                2.0
                bjs10761
                April 2018
                Converter:WILEY_ML3GV2_TO_NLMPMC version:version=5.3.4 mode:remove_FC converted:16.04.2018

                Surgery
                Surgery

                Comments

                Comment on this article