Abstract
Background
Free choice of hospital has been introduced in many healthcare systems to accommodate patient preferences and incentivize hospitals to compete; however, little is known about what patients actually prefer.
Objectives
This study assessed women’s preferences for birthing hospital in Denmark by quantifying the utility and trade-offs of hospital attributes.
Methods
We conducted a discrete-choice experiment survey with 12 hypothetical scenarios in which women had to choose between three hospitals characterized by five attributes: continuity of midwifery care, availability of a neonatal intensive care unit (NICU), hospital services offered, level of specialization to handle rare events, and travel time. A random parameter logit model was used to estimate the utility and marginal willingness to travel (WTT) for improvements in other hospital attributes.
Results
A total of 517 women completed the survey. Significant preferences were expressed for all attributes (p < 0.01), with the availability of a NICU being the most important driver of women’s preferences; women were willing to travel 30 more minutes (95% confidence interval 28–32) to reach a hospital with a highly specialized NICU. The subgroup analyses revealed differences in WTT, with substantial heterogeneity due to prior experience with giving birth and regarding risk attitude and health literacy.
Conclusion
A high specialization level was the most influential factor for women without previous birth experience and for risk-averse individuals but not for women with a high health literacy score. Hence, more information about the woman’s risk profile and services required could play a role in affecting hospital choice.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Vrangbaek K, Robertson R, Winblad U, Van de Bovenkamp H, Dixon A. Choice policies in Northern European health systems. Health Econ Policy Law. 2012;7:47–71.
Vrangbaek K, Østergren K, Birk HO, Winblad U. Patient reactions to hospital choice in Norway, Denmark, and Sweden. Health Econ Policy Law. 2007;2:125–52.
Vrangbæk K. Patient empowerment and the introduction of hospital choice in Denmark and Norway. Health Econ Policy Law. 2006;1:371–94.
Gaynor BM, Propper C, Seiler S. Free to choose? Reform, choice, and consideration sets in the English National Health Service. Am Econ Rev. 2016;106:3521–57.
Moscelli G, Siciliani L, Gutacker N, Cookson R., Socioeconomic inequality of access to healthcare: Does patients’ choice explain the gradient? CHE Res.Pap. 2015;112.
Moscelli G, Siciliani L, Gutacker N, Gravelle H. Regional science and urban economics location, quality and choice of hospital: evidence from England 2002–2013. Reg Sci Urban Econ. 2016;60:112–24.
Dawson D, Jacobs R, Martin S, Smith P. Evaluation of the London patient choice project: system wide impacts final report. September, 2004.
Jung K, Feldman R, Scanlon D. Where would you go for your next hospitalization? J Health Econ. 2011;30:832–41.
Brown P, Panattoni L, Cameron L, Knox S, Ashton T, Tenbensel T, Windsor J. Hospital sector choice and support for public hospital care in New Zealand: results from a labeled discrete choice survey. J Health Econ. 2015;43:118–27.
Gooberman-Hill R. Qualitative approaches to understanding patient preferences. Patient. 2012;5:215–23.
Burge P, Devlin N, Appleby J, Rohr C, Grant J. Do patients always prefer quicker treatment? A discrete choice analysis of patients’ stated preferences in the London patient choice project. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2005;3:183–94.
Murray-Davis B, McDonald H, Rietsma A, Coubrough M, Hutton E. Deciding on home or hospital birth: results of the Ontario choice of birthplace survey. Midwifery. 2014;30(7):869–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.midw.2014.01.008.
Regan M, McElroy K. Women’s perceptions of childbirth risk and place of birth. J Clin Ethics. 2013;24(3):239–52.
Pavlova M, Hendrix M, Nouwens E, Nijhuis J, Van Merode G. The choice of obstetric care by low-risk pregnant women in the Netherlands: implications for policy and management. Health Policy (New York). 2009;93:27–34.
Haken TVH, Pavlova M, Hendrix M, Nieuwenhuijze M, De Vries R, Nijhuis J. Eliciting preferences for key attributes of intrapartum care in The Netherlands. Birth. 2014;41(2):185–94.
Hundley V, Ryan M, Graham W. Assessing women’s preferences for intrapartum care. Birth Berkeley Calif. 2001;28:254–63.
Fawsitt CG, Bourke J, Greene RA, et al. What do women want? Valuing women’s preferences and estimating demand for alternative models of maternity care using a discrete choice experiment. Health Policy. 2017;121(11):1154–60.
Dehbarez NT, Lou S, Uldbjerg N, Møller A, Gryd-Hansen D, Søgaard R. Pregnant women’s choice of birthing hospital: a qualitative study on individuals’ preferences. J Women Birth. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wombi.2017.11.006.
Bekker-Grob EW, Donkers B, Jonker MF, Stolk EA. Sample size requirements for discrete-choice experiments in healthcare: a practical guide. Patient Patient-Centered Outcomes Res. 2015;8:373–84.
ChoiceMetrics. Ngene 1.1.2 User manual & reference guide. 2014. http://www.choice-metrics.com. Accessed 22 Mar 2017.
Bierlaire M. BisonBiogeme 2.4: estimating a first model. 2015. Report TRANSPORT-OR 150720.
Osborne RH, Batterham RW, Elsworth GR, Hawkins M, Buchbinder R. The grounded psychometric development and initial validation of the Health Literacy Questionnaire (HLQ). BMC Public Health. 2013;13:1.
Galizzi MM, R. Miniaci R, Miniaci R. Temporal stability, cross-validity, and external validity of risk preferences measures: experimental evidence from a UK representative sample. SSRN Electron J. 2016. Working paper.
Schwartz B, Ward A, Monterosso J, Lyubomirsky S, White K, Lehman DR. Maximizing versus satisficing: happiness is a matter of choice. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2002;83:1178–97.
Train K. Discrete choice methods with simulation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2003.
Poulos C, Kinter E, John JY, Posner J, Reder AT. Patient preferences for injectable treatments for multiple sclerosis in the United States: a discrete-choice experiment. Patient Patient-Centered Outcomes Res. 2016;9:171–80.
Chiou L, Walker JL. Masking identification of discrete choice models under simulation methods. J Econ. 2007;141:683–703.
C.J. Bliemer M, M. Rose J, Confidence intervals of willingness-to-pay for random coefficient logit models. Working paper. The University of Sydney. 2013.
Hensher DA, Rose JM, Greene WH. Applied choice analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2015. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316136232
van Haaren-Ten Haken T, Hendrix M, Nieuwenhuijze M, Budé L, de Vries R, Nijhuis J. Preferred place of birth: characteristics and motives of low-risk nulliparous women in the Netherlands. Midwifery. 2012;28:609–18.
Chorus CG, Rose JM, Hensher DA. Regret minimization or utility maximization: it depends on the attribute. Environ Plan B Plan Des. 2013;40(1):154–69. https://doi.org/10.1068/b38092.
Chorus CG, Arentze TA, Timmermans HJP. A Random Regret-Minimization model of travel choice. Transp Res Part B Methodol. 2008;42(1):1–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trb.2007.05.004.
Brewer NT, DeFrank JT, Gilkay MB. Anticipated regret and health behaviour: a meta-analysis. Health Psychol. 2016;35(11):1264–75. https://doi.org/10.1037/hea0000294.
Lancsar E, Louviere J. Deleting ‘irrational’ responses from discrete choice experiments: a case of investigating or imposing preferences? Health Econ. 2006;15:797–811.
Veldwijk J, Lambooij MS, De Bekker-Grob EW, Smit HA, De Wit GA. The effect of including an opt-out option in discrete choice experiments. PLoS One. 2014;9:e111805. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0111805.
Mark TL, Swait J. Using stated preference modeling to forecast the effect of medication attributes on prescriptions of alcoholism medications. Value Health. 2003;6:474–82.
Ryan M, Watson V. Comparing welfare estimates from payment card contingent valuation and discrete choice experiments. Health Econ. 2009;18:389–401. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.1364.
Salampessy BH, Veldwijk J, Schuit AJ, De Wit GA, Lambooij MS. The predictive value of discrete choice experiments in public health: an exploratory application. Patient-Centered Outcomes Res. 2015;8:521–9.
Yang JC, Johnson FR, Kilambi V, Mohamed AF. Sample size and utility-difference precision in discrete-choice experiments: a meta-simulation approach. J Choice Model. 2015;16(C):50–7.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank the volunteers for participating in individual and focus group interviews in the design phase of the study.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
NTD contributed to the study design, data analysis, interpretation of results, drafting the manuscript, and reporting. MRM, DG-H, and RS contributed to the study design, data analysis, interpretation of results, writing, and reporting. NU contributed to study design to ensure the applicability and relevance of the survey instrument, writing and reporting. All authors approved the manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethical approval
The Central Denmark Region data approval committee approved the study (Journal number 1-16-02-40-15).
Funding
This study was funded by the Central Denmark Region Health Research Fund, Aarhus University and the Health Foundation (Grant number 15-B-0122).
Conflicts of interest
N. Tayyari Dehbarez, M. Raun Mørkbak, D. Gyrd-Hansen, N. Uldbjerg, and R. Søgaard have no conflicts of interest.
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Tayyari Dehbarez, N., Raun Mørkbak, M., Gyrd-Hansen, D. et al. Women’s Preferences for Birthing Hospital in Denmark: A Discrete Choice Experiment. Patient 11, 613–624 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-018-0313-9
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-018-0313-9