Skip to main content
Top
Published in: BMC Primary Care 1/2019

Open Access 01-12-2019 | Care | Research article

Public preferences for primary care provision in Germany – a discrete choice experiment

Authors: Kim-Sarah Krinke, Ulla Tangermann, Volker Eric Amelung, Christian Krauth

Published in: BMC Primary Care | Issue 1/2019

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Primary care is a central element of healthcare and addresses the main health problems of the population. While primary care gains in importance due to an aging population, there is an ongoing debate on physician shortages in German rural regions. The study aims on analyzing the population’s preferences on primary healthcare and, therefore, on helping policy makers to make care delivery more responsive to patients’ needs when planning political reforms of primary care.

Methods

A paper-based discrete choice experiment (DCE) was used to assess preferences of the population of eight rural regions in Germany. Based on literature search and qualitative research, six attributes were selected and included in the choice experiment. The survey presented participants with eight choice sets in which they had to choose between two possible scenarios of care. A conditional logistic regression as well as a latent class model (LCM) were used to analyze preferences for primary healthcare.

Results

Nine hundred four participants completed the survey (response rate 46.1%). The conditional logistic regression showed significant impact of the attributes “home visits”, “distance to practice”, “number of healthcare providers”, “opening hours of the practice”, and “diagnostic facilities” on the respondents’ choices of primary healthcare alternatives. Moreover, the LCM identified four classes that can be characterized by preference homogeneity within and heterogeneity between the classes.

Conclusion

Although the study revealed heterogeneous preferences among the latent classes, several similarities in preferences for primary care could be detected. The knowledge on these public preferences may help policy makers when implementing new models of primary care and, thus, raise the populations’ acceptance of future primary care provision and innovative care models.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Footnotes
1
For more detailed information on the experimental design and construction of choice tasks see for example Amaya-Amaya [11].
 
2
Hard to serve regions are regions in which the need of medical care can no longer be met by traditional care models [3]. For a more detailed description of hard to serve regions see Tangermann et al. [14].
 
Literature
1.
go back to reference World Health Organization. Declaration of Alma-Ata. International Conference on Primary Health Care. Alma-Ata, USSR: World Health Organization 1978: 6–12. World Health Organization. Declaration of Alma-Ata. International Conference on Primary Health Care. Alma-Ata, USSR: World Health Organization 1978: 6–12.
2.
go back to reference Cheraghi-Sohi S, Bower P, Mead N, et al. What are the key attributes of primary care for patients? Building a conceptual ‘map’ of patient preferences. Health Expect. 2006;9:275–84.CrossRef Cheraghi-Sohi S, Bower P, Mead N, et al. What are the key attributes of primary care for patients? Building a conceptual ‘map’ of patient preferences. Health Expect. 2006;9:275–84.CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Knieps F, Amelung VE, Wolf S. Die Gesundheitsversorgung in schwer zu versorgenden Regionen - Grundlagen, Definition, Problemanalyse. Gesundheits- und Sozialpolitik. 2012;6:8–19.CrossRef Knieps F, Amelung VE, Wolf S. Die Gesundheitsversorgung in schwer zu versorgenden Regionen - Grundlagen, Definition, Problemanalyse. Gesundheits- und Sozialpolitik. 2012;6:8–19.CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Bridges JF, Hauber AB, Marshall D, et al. Conjoint analysis applications in health a checklist: a report of the ISPOR good research practices for conjoint analysis task force. Value Health. 2011;14(4):403–13.CrossRef Bridges JF, Hauber AB, Marshall D, et al. Conjoint analysis applications in health a checklist: a report of the ISPOR good research practices for conjoint analysis task force. Value Health. 2011;14(4):403–13.CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Clark MD, Determann D, Petrou S, et al. Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature. Pharmacoeconomics. 2014;32(9):883–902.CrossRef Clark MD, Determann D, Petrou S, et al. Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature. Pharmacoeconomics. 2014;32(9):883–902.CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Lancaster KJ. A new approach to consumer theory. J Political Econ. 1966;74(2):132–57.CrossRef Lancaster KJ. A new approach to consumer theory. J Political Econ. 1966;74(2):132–57.CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Lancsar E, Louviere J. Conducting discrete choice experiments to inform healthcare decision making. A user's guide. Pharmacoeconomics. 2008;26(8):661–77.CrossRef Lancsar E, Louviere J. Conducting discrete choice experiments to inform healthcare decision making. A user's guide. Pharmacoeconomics. 2008;26(8):661–77.CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Amaya-Amaya M, Gerard K, Ryan M. Discrete choice experiments in a nutshell. In: Ryan M, Gerard K, Amaya-Amaya M, editors. Using discrete choice experiments to value health and health care. Dordrecht: Springer; 2008. p. 13–46. Amaya-Amaya M, Gerard K, Ryan M. Discrete choice experiments in a nutshell. In: Ryan M, Gerard K, Amaya-Amaya M, editors. Using discrete choice experiments to value health and health care. Dordrecht: Springer; 2008. p. 13–46.
13.
go back to reference Mühlbacher A, Johnson FR. Choice experiments to quantify preferences for health and healthcare: state of the practice. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2016;14(3):253–66.CrossRef Mühlbacher A, Johnson FR. Choice experiments to quantify preferences for health and healthcare: state of the practice. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2016;14(3):253–66.CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Tangermann U, Kleij K-S, Krauth C, Amelung VE. Identifikation schwer zu versorgender Regionen in der hausärztlichen Versorgung am Beispiel von Niedersachsen. ZFA. 2016;92(4):161–6. Tangermann U, Kleij K-S, Krauth C, Amelung VE. Identifikation schwer zu versorgender Regionen in der hausärztlichen Versorgung am Beispiel von Niedersachsen. ZFA. 2016;92(4):161–6.
15.
go back to reference Johnson RM, Orme BK. How many questions should you ask in choice-based conjoint studies? Sawtooth software research paper series. 1996. Johnson RM, Orme BK. How many questions should you ask in choice-based conjoint studies? Sawtooth software research paper series. 1996.
16.
go back to reference Orme B. Getting Started with Conjoint Analysis: Strategies for Product Design and Pricing Research. 2nd ed. Madison, Wis.: Research Publishers LLC; 2010. Orme B. Getting Started with Conjoint Analysis: Strategies for Product Design and Pricing Research. 2nd ed. Madison, Wis.: Research Publishers LLC; 2010.
17.
go back to reference Thurstone LL. A law of comparative judgment. Psychol Rev. 1927;34:273–86.CrossRef Thurstone LL. A law of comparative judgment. Psychol Rev. 1927;34:273–86.CrossRef
21.
go back to reference Kruk ME, Johnson JC, Gyakobo M, et al. Rural practice preferences among medical students in Ghana: a discrete choice experiment. Bull World Health Organ. 2010;88:333–41.CrossRef Kruk ME, Johnson JC, Gyakobo M, et al. Rural practice preferences among medical students in Ghana: a discrete choice experiment. Bull World Health Organ. 2010;88:333–41.CrossRef
22.
go back to reference Gerard K, Lattimer V, Surridge H, et al. The introduction of integrated out-of-hours arrangements in England: a discrete choice experiment of public preferences for alternative models of care. Health Expect. 2006;9:60–9.CrossRef Gerard K, Lattimer V, Surridge H, et al. The introduction of integrated out-of-hours arrangements in England: a discrete choice experiment of public preferences for alternative models of care. Health Expect. 2006;9:60–9.CrossRef
24.
go back to reference Caldow J, Bond C, Ryan M, et al. Treatment of minor illness in primary care: a national survey of patient satisfaction, attitudes and preferences regarding a wider nursing role. Health Expect. 2006;10(1):30–45.CrossRef Caldow J, Bond C, Ryan M, et al. Treatment of minor illness in primary care: a national survey of patient satisfaction, attitudes and preferences regarding a wider nursing role. Health Expect. 2006;10(1):30–45.CrossRef
25.
go back to reference Lagarde M, Erens B, Mays N. Determinants of the choice of GP practice registration in England: evidence from a discrete choice experiment. Health Policy. 2015;119(4):427–36.CrossRef Lagarde M, Erens B, Mays N. Determinants of the choice of GP practice registration in England: evidence from a discrete choice experiment. Health Policy. 2015;119(4):427–36.CrossRef
26.
go back to reference Schang L, Schuettig W, Sundmacher L. Unterversorgung im ländlichen Raum: Wie beurteilt die Bevölkerung innovative Modelle zur Sicherstellung einer bedarfsgerechten und wohnortnahen Gesundheitsversorgung? In: Boecken J, Braun B, Meierjuergen R, editors. Gesundheitsmonitor 2016. Buergerorientierung im Gesundheitswesen. Guetersloh: Bertelsmann Stiftung; 2016. p. 58–85. Schang L, Schuettig W, Sundmacher L. Unterversorgung im ländlichen Raum: Wie beurteilt die Bevölkerung innovative Modelle zur Sicherstellung einer bedarfsgerechten und wohnortnahen Gesundheitsversorgung? In: Boecken J, Braun B, Meierjuergen R, editors. Gesundheitsmonitor 2016. Buergerorientierung im Gesundheitswesen. Guetersloh: Bertelsmann Stiftung; 2016. p. 58–85.
30.
go back to reference World Health Organization. How to conduct a discrete choice experiment for health workforce recruitment and retention in remote and rural areas: a user guide with case studies. Geneva: WHO; 2012. World Health Organization. How to conduct a discrete choice experiment for health workforce recruitment and retention in remote and rural areas: a user guide with case studies. Geneva: WHO; 2012.
31.
go back to reference De Bekker-Grob EW, Ryan M, Gerard K. Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature. Health Econ. 2012;21(2):145–72.CrossRef De Bekker-Grob EW, Ryan M, Gerard K. Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature. Health Econ. 2012;21(2):145–72.CrossRef
32.
go back to reference Tangermann U, Kleij K-S, Krauth C, et al. Sicherstellung der medizinischen Versorgung. Patienten sind offen für Neues. Deutsches Ärzteblatt. 2016;113(45). Tangermann U, Kleij K-S, Krauth C, et al. Sicherstellung der medizinischen Versorgung. Patienten sind offen für Neues. Deutsches Ärzteblatt. 2016;113(45).
Metadata
Title
Public preferences for primary care provision in Germany – a discrete choice experiment
Authors
Kim-Sarah Krinke
Ulla Tangermann
Volker Eric Amelung
Christian Krauth
Publication date
01-12-2019
Publisher
BioMed Central
Keyword
Care
Published in
BMC Primary Care / Issue 1/2019
Electronic ISSN: 2731-4553
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12875-019-0967-y

Other articles of this Issue 1/2019

BMC Primary Care 1/2019 Go to the issue