Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Patients Preferences

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Handbook Integrated Care

  • 2299 Accesses

Abstract

Integrated care (IC) suits patient needs better than fragmented health services. It is needed to organize care around the patient (Davis et al. 2005) and is seen as a critical factor in a high-performance healthcare system (McAllister et al. 2007). Care coordination is a process that addresses the health needs and wants of patients, including a range of medical and social support services (Rosenbach and Young 2000; Tarzian and Silverman 2002). Still there are problems in defining care coordination (Wise et al. 2007) which may be caused by the lack of knowledge about patient priorities. Hence patients must play a major role in designing the infrastructure and policies that will support the care coordination and integrated care approaches (Laine and Davidoff 1996).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adams, K., & Corrigan, J. (2003). Priority areas for national action: Transforming health care quality. Institute of Medicine of the National Academies, The National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Antonelli, R., McAllister, J., & Popp, J. (2009). Making care coordination a critical component of the pediatric health system: A multidisciplinary framework. New York: The Commonwealth Fund.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ben-Akiva, M. E., & Lerman, S. R. (1985). Discrete choice analysis: Theory and application to travel demand. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bethge, S., Mühlbacher, A., & Amelung, V. (2015, November 7–11). The importance of the communicator for an integrated care program – A comparative preference analysis with Discrete Choice Experiments. International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) 18th Annual European Congress, Milan, Italy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bridges, J., Hauber, A., Marshall, D., Lloyd, A., Prosser, L., Regier, D., Johnson, F., & Mauskopf, J. A. (2011). Conjoint analysis applications in health—a checklist: A Report of the ISPOR Good Research Practices for Conjoint Analysis Task Force. Value in Health, 14(4), 403–413.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bryan, S., & Parry, D. (2002). Structural reliability of conjoint measurement in health care: An empirical investigation. Applied Economics, 34(5), 561–568.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bryan, S., Gold, L., Sheldon, R., & Buxton, M. (2000). Preference measurement using conjoint methods: An empirical investigation of reliability. Health Economics, 9(5), 385–395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, S. M., Roland, M. O., & Buetow, S. A. (2000). Defining quality of care. Social Science and Medicine, 51(11), 1611–1625.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chapple, A., Campbell, S., Rogers, A., & Roland, M. (2002). Users’ understanding of medical knowledge in general practice. Social Science and Medicine, 54(8), 1215–1224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheraghi-Sohi, S., Hole, A. R., Mead, N., McDonald, R., Whalley, D., Bower, P., & Roland, M. (2008). What patients want from primary care consultations: A discrete choice experiment to identify patients’ priorities. Annals of Family Medicine, 6(2), 107–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, M. D., Determann, D., Petrou, S., Moro, D., & de Bekker-Grob, E. W. (2014). Discrete choice experiments in health economics: A review of the literature. PharmacoEconomics, 32(9), 883–902.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coulter, A. (2005). What do patients and the public want from primary care? BMJ, 331(7526), 1199–1201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Criscione, T., Walsh, K. K., & Kastner, T. A. (1995). An evaluation of care coordination in controlling inpatient hospital utilization of people with developmental disabilities. Mental Retardation, 33(6), 364–373.

    Google Scholar 

  • Danner, M., Hummel, J. M., Volz, F., Van Manen, J. G., Wiegard, B., Dintsios, C. M., Bastian, H., Gerber, A., & IJzerman, M. J. (2011). Integrating patients’ views into health technology assessment: Analytic hierarchy process (AHP) as a method to elicit patient preferences. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 27(04), 369–375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, K., Schoenbaum, S. C., & Audet, A. M. (2005). A 2020 vision of patient-centered primary care. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 20(10), 953–957.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Bekker Grob, E. W., Ryan, M., & Gerard, K. (2010). Discrete choice experiments in health economics: A review of the literature. Health Economics, 21(2), 145–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferrer, L. (2015). Engaging patients, carers and communities for the provision of coordinated/integrated health services. Working paper, WHO Regional Office for Europe: Copenhagen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fung, C. H., Elliott, M. N., Hays, R. D., Kahn, K. L., Kanouse, D. E., McGlynn, E. A., Spranca, M. D., & Shekelle, P. G. (2005). Patients’ preferences for technical versus interpersonal quality when selecting a primary care physician. Health Services Research, 40(4), 957–977.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gerard, K., & Lattimer, V. (2005). Preferences of patients for emergency services available during usual GP surgery hours: A discrete choice experiment. Family Practice, 22(1), 28–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hauber, A. B. (2009). Healthy-years equivalent: Wounded but not yet dead. Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research, 9(3), 265–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henke, K.-D., Mackenthun, B., & Schreyögg, J. (2002). Gesundheitsmarkt Berlin: Perspektiven für Wachstum und Beschäftigung. Baden-Baden: Nomos-Verl.-Ges.

    Google Scholar 

  • Institute of Medicine. (2001). Crossing the quality chasm: A new health system for the 21st century. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, F. R., Hauber, A. B., & Özdemir, S. (2009). Using conjoint analysis to estimate healthy-year equivalents for acute conditions: An application to vasomotor symptoms. Value in Health, 12(1), 146–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, F. R., Lancsar, E., Marshall, D., Kilambi, V., Mühlbacher, A., Regier, D. A., Bresnahan, B. W., Kanninen, B., & Bridges, J. F. P. (2012). Constructing experimental designs for discrete-choice experiments. Report of the ISPOR Conjoint Analysis Experimental Design Task Force.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, F. R., Ozdemir, S., Mansfield, C., Hass, S., Miller, D. W., Siegel, C. A., & Sands, B. E. (2007). Crohn’s disease patients’ risk-benefit preferences: Serious adverse event risks versus treatment efficacy. Gastroenterology, 133(3), 769–779.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, R. F., et al. (2015). Sample size and utility-difference precision in discrete-choice experiments: A meta-simulation approach. Journal of Choice Modelling, 16, 50–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Juhnke, C., & Mühlbacher, A. (2013). Patient-centredness in integrated healthcare delivery systems-needs, expectations and priorities for organised healthcare systems. International Journal of Integrated Care, 13, 1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kleinman, L., McIntosh, E., Ryan, M., Schmier, J., Crawley, J., Locke III, G. R., & De Lissovoy, G. (2002). Willingness to pay for complete symptom relief of gastroesophageal reflux disease. Archives of Internal Medicine, 162(12), 1361–1366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laine, C., & Davidoff, F. (1996). Patient-centered medicine. A professional evolution. JAMA, 275(2), 152–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lancaster, K. J. (1966). A new approach to consumer theory. Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lancaster, K. (1971). Consumer demand: A new approach. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lancsar, E., & Louviere, J. (2008). Conducting discrete choice experiments to inform healthcare decision making: A user’s guide. PharmacoEconomics, 26(8), 661–678.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lancsar, E., Louviere, J., & Flynn, T. (2007). Several methods to investigate relative attribute impact in stated preference experiments. Social Science & Medicine, 64(8), 1738–1753.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liptak, G. S., Burns, C. M., Davidson, P. W., & McAnarney, E. R. (1998). Effects of providing comprehensive ambulatory services to children with chronic conditions. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 152(10), 1003–1008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Longo, M. F., Cohen, D. R., Hood, K., Edwards, A., Robling, M., Elwyn, G., & Russell, I. T. (2006). Involving patients in primary care consultations: Assessing preferences using discrete choice experiments. The British Journal of General Practice, 56(522), 35–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Markham, F. W., Diamond, J. J., & Hermansen, C. L. (1999). The use of conjoint analysis to study patient satisfaction. Evaluation & The Health Professions, 22(3), 371–378.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McAllister, J. W., Presler, E., & Cooley, W. C. (2007). Practice-based care coordination: A medical home essential. Pediatrics, 120(3), e723–e733.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McFadden, D. (1973). Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. Berkeley, CA: University of California.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, A., Shackley, P., Pickin, M., & Brazier, J. (2000). Quantifying patient preferences for out-of-hours primary care. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy, 5(4), 214–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mühlbacher, A. C., & Bethge, S. (2014). Patients’ preferences: A discrete-choice experiment for treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer. The European Journal of Health Economics, 6, 657–670.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mühlbacher, A., & Bethge, S. (2015). Reduce mortality risk above all else: A discrete-choice experiment in acute coronary syndrome patients. PharmacoEconomics, 33(1), 71–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mühlbacher, A., Bethge, S., & Eble, S. (2015a). Präferenzen für Versorgungsnetzwerke: Eigenschaften von integrierten Versorgungsprogrammen und deren Einfluss auf den Patientennutzen. Das Gesundheitswesen, 77(5), 340–350.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mühlbacher, A. C., Bethge, S., Reed, S. D., & Schulman, K. A. (2015b). Patient preferences for features of health care delivery systems: A discrete-choice experiment. Health Services Research, 51, 704–727.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mühlbacher, A., Bethge, S., & Tockhorn, A. (2013). Präferenzmessung im Gesundheitswesen: Grundlagen von Discrete-Choice-Experimenten. Gesundheitsökonomie & Qualitätsmanagement, 18(4), 159–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mühlbacher, A., Bridges, J. F. P., Bethge, S., Dintsios, C. M., Schwalm, A., Gerber-Grote, A., & Nübling, M. (2016). Preferences for antiviral therapy of chronic hepatitis C: A discrete choice experiment. European Journal of Health Economics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mühlbacher, A. C., Junker, U., Juhnke, C., Stemmler, E., Kohlmann, T., Leverkus, F., & Nubling, M. (2014). Chronic pain patients’ treatment preferences: a discrete-choice experiment. Eur J Health Econ, 16, 613–628.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mühlbacher, A., Lincke, H., & Nübling, M. (2008). Evaluating patients’ preferences for multiple myeloma therapy, a discrete choice experiment. GMS Psycho-Social-Medicine, 5, PMC2736517.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mühlbacher, A., Nübling, M., Rudolph, I., & Linke, H. J. (2009). Analysis of patient preferences in the drug treatment of Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD): A discrete choice experiment. BMC Health Services Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mulley, A., Trimble, C., & Elwyn, G. (2012). Patients’ preferences matter – Stop the silent misdiagnosis. London: The King’s Fund.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Quality Forum. (2006, August). National Quality Forum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ostermann, J., Njau, B., Mtuy, T., Brown, D. S., Muhlbacher, A., & Thielman, N. (2015). One size does not fit all: HIV testing preferences differ among high-risk groups in Northern Tanzania. AIDS Care, 27, 595–603.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peek, C. J. (2009). Integrating care for persons, not only diseases. Journal of Clinical Psychology in Medical Settings, 16(1), 13–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M. E., & Teisberg, E. O. (2006). Redefining health care: Creating value-based competition on results. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rao, M., Clarke, A., Sanderson, C., & Hammersley, R. (2006). Patients’ own assessments of quality of primary care compared with objective records based measures of technical quality of care: Cross sectional study. BMJ, 333(7557), 19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rodriguez, H., von Glahn, T., Rogers, W., & Gelb Safran, D. (2009). Organizational and market influences on physician performance on patient experience measures. Health Services Research, 44, 880–901.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenbach, M., & Young, C. (2000). Care coordination and medicaid managed care: Emerging issues for states and managed care organizations. Spectrum, 73(4), 1–5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, M., & Farrar, S. (2000). Using conjoint analysis to elicit preferences for health care. BMJ, 320(7248), 1530–1533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, M., & Gerard, K. (2003). Using discrete choice experiments to value health care programmes: Current practice and future research reflections. Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, 2(1), 55–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, M., & Hughes, J. (1997). Using conjoint analysis to assess women’s preferences for miscarriage management. Health Economics, 6(3), 261–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, M., Gerard, K., & Amaya-Amaya, M. (2008). Using discrete choice experiments to value health and health care. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, M., Bate, A., Eastmond, C. J., & Ludbrook, A. (2001a). Use of discrete choice experiments to elicit preferences. Quality in Health Care, 10(Suppl 1), i55–i60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, M., Scott, D. A., Reeves, C., Bate, A., van Teijlingen, E. R., Russell, E. M., Napper, M., & Robb, C. M. (2001b). Eliciting public preferences for healthcare: A systematic review of techniques. Health Technology Assessment, 5(5), 1–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott, A., & Vick, S. (1999). Patients, doctors and contracts: an application of principal-agent theory to the doctor-patient relationship. Scottish Journal of Political Economy, 46(2), 111–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott, A., Watson, M. S., & Ross, S. (2003). Eliciting preferences of the community for out of hours care provided by general practitioners: A stated preference discrete choice experiment. Social Science and Medicine, 56(4), 803–814.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sevin, C., Moore, G., Shepherd, J., Jacobs, T., & Hupke, C. (2009). Transforming care teams to provide the best possible patient-centered, collaborative care. The Journal of Ambulatory Care Management, 32(1), 24–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tarzian, A. J., & Silverman, H. J. (2002). Care coordination and utilization review: Clinical case managers’ perceptions of dual role obligations. The Journal of Clinical Ethics, 13(3), 216–229.

    Google Scholar 

  • Telser, H., Becker, K., & Zweifel, P. (2008). Validity and reliability of willingness-to-pay estimates: Evidence from two overlapping discrete-choice-experiments. The Patient, Patient-Centered Outcome Research, 1, 283–293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). (2014). The patient preference initiative: Incorporating patient preference information into the medical device regulatory processes. Public Workshop, September 18–19, 2013. FDA White Oak Campus, Silver Spring, MD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ubach, C., Scott, A., French, F., Awramenko, M., & Needham, G. (2003). What do hospital consultants value about their jobs? A discrete choice experiment. BMJ, 326(7404), 1432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vick, S., & Scott, A. (1998). Agency in health care. Examining patients’ preferences for attributes of the doctor-patient relationship. Journal of Health Economics, 17(5), 587–605.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wensing, M., Jung, H. P., Mainz, J., Olesen, F., & Grol, R. (1998). A systematic review of the literature on patient priorities for general practice care. Part 1: Description of the research domain. Social Science and Medicine, 47(10), 1573–1588.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wise, P., Huffman, L., & Brat, G. (2007). A critical analysis of care coordination strategies for children with special health care needs. Technical Review No. 14. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. AHRQ Publication No. 07-0054.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wismar, M., & Busse, R. (2002). Outcome-related health targets-political strategies for better health outcomes – A conceptual and comparative study (part 2). Health Policy, 59(3), 223–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • World Health Organization (WHO). (2015). WHO global strategy on people-centred and integrated health services. Interim report. WHO reference number: WHO/HIS/SDS/2015.6.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Within the US study, the SSRI at DUKE University and DUKE Health View supported the recruitment of patient for the patient preference study. The study was financially supported by the Commonwealth Fund and the Harkness Fellowship in Healthcare Policy and Practice, New York, USA granted to Axel Mühlbacher. Susanne Bethge received a stipend from the International Academy of Life Science, Hannover, Germany. The German study was financially supported by Berlin Chemie AG.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Health Economics and Health Care Management, Hochschule Neubrandenburg, Neubrandenburg, Germany

    A. Mühlbacher

  2. Center for Health Policy and Inequalities Research, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA

    A. Mühlbacher

  3. Innovation Committee at the Federal Joint Committee (Healthcare), Berlin, Germany

    Susanne Bethge

Authors
  1. A. Mühlbacher
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Susanne Bethge
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to A. Mühlbacher .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for Epidemiology, Social Medicine and Health System Research, Medical School Hannover, Hannover, Germany

    Volker Amelung

  2. International Foundation for Integrated Care, Oxford, United Kingdom

    Viktoria Stein

  3. International Foundation for Integrated Care, Oxford, United Kingdom

    Nicholas Goodwin

  4. Health Policy Research and Planning, Clalit Health Services, Tel-Aviv, Israel

    Ran Balicer

  5. European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies, London School of Economics and Political Science, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom

    Ellen Nolte

  6. Workforce Research & Evaluation, Alberta Health Services Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada

    Esther Suter

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Mühlbacher, A., Bethge, S. (2017). Patients Preferences. In: Amelung, V., Stein, V., Goodwin, N., Balicer, R., Nolte, E., Suter, E. (eds) Handbook Integrated Care. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-56103-5_3

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation