Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Exploring the Preferences of Parents of Children with Myopia in Rural China for Eye Care Services Under Privatization Policy: Evidence from a Discrete Choice Experiment

  • Original Research Article
  • Published:
The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

This study aims to measure the preferences and valuations of parents of students with myopia parents for eye care service attributes in rural China, and to quantify the potential welfare impacts of privatization policy on children’s eye care services.

Methods

A discrete choice experiment was designed and implemented among a sample of parents of children with myopia in rural China. We randomly selected 350 participants from the list of subjects obtained from local town schools and family doctors using a random number table method. The participants were asked to choose between two hypothetical scenarios defined by five attributes: provider type, distance, price, lenses type, and refractionists’ professional competencies. We estimate conditional logit and mixed logit models to approximate individual preferences for these attributes and estimate the welfare effects by calculating willingness to pay.

Results

Respondents (n = 336) showed a significant preference for public providers of refractive error services, myopia control lenses, and professional refractionists (P < 0.01 for each). Consumer welfare losses due to a prohibition of the public provision of refractive error services could be compensated by improving the quality of products and services delivered by private providers. Lastly, both parent and child demographics and previous experience of eye care service consumption are important predictors of willingness to pay for refractive error services.

Conclusions

The privatization policy on children’s eye care services would not cater to the preferences of rural consumers, inevitably leading to welfare losses. However, reduced consumer welfare could be compensated by improving the quality of products and service delivery from private providers. These results could help inform strategies to improve and reduce inequities in access to high-quality eye care services in rural China.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

The datasets generated and analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request and subjected to the approval from the ethics review committee.

References

  1. Dandona R, Dandona L. Refractive error blindness. Bull World Health Organ. 2001;79:237–43.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Smith TST, Frick KD, Holden BA, Fricke TR, Naidoo KS. Potential lost productivity resulting from the global burden of uncorrected refractive error. Bull World Health Organ. 2009;87:431–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Morgan IG, Ohno-Matsui K, Saw S-M. Myopia. Lancet. 2012;379:1739–48.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Ma X, Zhou Z, Yi H, Pang X, Shi Y, Chen Q, et al. Effect of providing free glasses on children’s educational outcomes in China: cluster randomized controlled trial. BMJ. 2014;349: g5740.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. World Health Organization. World report on vision [Internet]. Available from https://www.who.int/publications-detail-redirect/9789241516570. Accessed 04 Jun 2023.

  6. Resnikoff S, Pascolini D, Mariotti SP, Pokharel GP. Global magnitude of visual impairment caused by uncorrected refractive errors in 2004. Bull World Health Organ. 2008;86:63–70.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Burton MJ, Ramke J, Marques AP, Bourne RRA, Congdon N, Jones I, et al. The Lancet Global Health Commission on global eye health: vision beyond 2020. Lancet Glob Health. 2021;9:e489-551.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Ma Y, Zhang X, He F, Ma X, Yi H, Rose N, et al. Visual impairment in rural and migrant Chinese school-going children: prevalence, severity, correction and associations. Br J Ophthalmol. 2022;106:275–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Congdon N, Zheng M, Sharma A, Choi K, Song Y, Zhang M, et al. Prevalence and determinants of spectacle nonwear among rural Chinese secondary schoolchildren: the Xichang pediatric refractive error study report 3. Arch Ophthalmol. 2008;126:1717–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Meng Q, Mills A, Wang L, Han Q. What can we learn from China’s health system reform? BMJ. 2019;365: l2349.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. The National People’s Congress. The essential healthcare and health promotion law [Internet]. [cited 2023 Jun 9]. Available from http://www.npc.gov.cn/npc/c30834/201912/15b7b1cfda374666a2d4c43d1e15457c.shtml. Accessed 9 Jun 2023.

  12. Corruption or abuse of power? China Discipline Inspection and Supervision Report [Internet]. Available from https://www.mem.gov.cn/jjz/yasj/202206/t20220610_415345.shtml. Accessed 10 Jun 2023.

  13. Fred Hollows Foundation. Feasibility study on the social enterprise & social franchising to extend effective refractive error coverage in rural China [Internet]. Available from https://www.hollows.org/. Accessed 9 Jun 2023.

  14. Zhou Z, Zeng J, Ma X, Pang X, Yi H, Chen Q, et al. Accuracy of rural refractionists in western China. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2014;55:154–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Bai Y, Yi H, Zhang L, Shi Y, Ma X, Congdon N, et al. An investigation of vision problems and the vision care system in rural China. Southeast Asian J Trop Med Public Health. 2014;45:1464–73.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Nie J, Zhang L, Gao J, Li J, Zhou Q, Shi Y, et al. Using incognito standardised patients to evaluate quality of eye care in China. Br J Ophthalmol. 2021;105:311–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Zeithaml VA. Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: a means-end model and synthesis of evidence. J Mark. 1988;52:2–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. de Bekker-Grob EW, Ryan M, Gerard K. Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature. Health Econ. 2012;21:145–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Clark MD, Determann D, Petrou S, Moro D, de Bekker-Grob EW. Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature. Pharmacoeconomics. 2014;32:883–902.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Heimeshoff M, Schreyögg J, Tiemann O. Employment effects of hospital privatization in Germany. Eur J Health Econ. 2014;15:747–57.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Ramamonjiarivelo ZH, McRoy L, Epane JP, Hearld LR, Weech-Maldonado R. The impact of privatization on efficiency and productivity: the case of American public hospitals. AMPROC. 2015;2015:16073.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Duggan M, Gruber J, Vabson B. The consequences of health care privatization: evidence from medicare advantage exits. Am Econ J Econ Policy. 2018;10:153–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. National Bureau of Statistics. China statistical yearbook 2021. Beijing: China Statistics Press; 2022.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Rose JM, Bliemer MCJ, Hensher DA, Collins AT. Designing efficient stated choice experiments in the presence of reference alternatives. Transport Res B Methodol. 2008;42:395–406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. de Bresser J, Knoef M, van Ooijen R. Preferences for in-kind and in-cash home care insurance. J Health Econ. 2022;84: 102626.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Milte R, Ratcliffe J, Chen G, Crotty M. What characteristics of nursing homes are most valued by consumers? a discrete choice experiment with residents and family members. Value Health. 2018;21:843–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Genie MG, Nicoló A, Pasini G. The role of heterogeneity of patients’ preferences in kidney transplantation. J Health Econ. 2020;72: 102331.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Chrzan K. Three kinds of order effects in choice-based conjoint analysis. Mark Lett. 1994;5:165–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Campbell D, Erdem S. Position bias in best-worst scaling surveys: a case study on trust in institutions. Am J Agric Econ. 2015;97:526–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Matthews Y, Scarpa R, Marsh D. Using virtual environments to improve the realism of choice experiments: a case study about coastal erosion management. J Environ Econ Manage. 2017;81:193–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Lancaster KJ. A new approach to consumer theory. J Polit Econ. 1966;74:132–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Mcfadden DL. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior [Internet]. Frontiers in Econometrics; 1974. Available from: http://www.researchgate.net/publication/239478197_Conditional_Logit_Analysis_of_Qualitative_Choice_Analysis. Accessed 4 Jun 2023.

  33. McFadden D, Train K. Mixed MNL models for discrete response. J Appl Econ. 2000;15:447–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Hensher DA, Rose JM, Greene WH. Applied choice analysis [Internet]. 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press; 2015. Available from https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/9781316136232/type/book. Accessed 4 Jun 2023.

  35. Hess S, Train K. Correlation and scale in mixed logit models. J Choice Model. 2017;23:1–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Wang X, Han L, Huang J, Zhang L, Rozelle S. Gender and off-farm employment: evidence from rural China. China World Econ. 2016;24:18–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Kiiskinen U, Suominen-Taipale AL, Cairns J. Think twice before you book? Modelling the choice of public vs private dentist in a choice experiment. Health Econ. 2010;19:670–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Brown P, Panattoni L, Cameron L, Knox S, Ashton T, Tenbensel T, et al. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Tang C, Xu J, Zhang M. The choice and preference for public-private health care among urban residents in China: evidence from a discrete choice experiment. BMC Health Serv Res. 2016;16:580.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Zhu J, Li J, Zhang Z, Li H, Cai L. Exploring determinants of health provider choice and heterogeneity in preference among outpatients in Beijing: a labelled discrete choice experiment. BMJ Open. 2019;9: e023363.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Behrman JR, Pollak RA, Taubman P. Do parents favor boys? Int Econ Rev. 1986;27:33–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Hannum E, Kong P, Zhang Y. Family sources of educational gender inequality in rural China: a critical assessment. Int J Educ Dev. 2009;29:474–86.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Kornrich S, Furstenberg F. Investing in children: changes in parental spending on children, 1972–2007. Demography. 2012;50:1–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Liu Y, Jiang Q, Chen F. Children’s gender and parental educational strategies in rural and urban China: the moderating roles of sibship size and family resources. Chin Sociol Rev. 2020;52:239–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Salkeld G, Ryan M, Short L. The veil of experience: do consumers prefer what they know best? J Health Econ. 2000;9:267–70.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Sylvia S, Ma X, Shi Y, Rozelle S. Ordeal mechanisms, information, and the cost-effectiveness of strategies to provide subsidized eyeglasses. J Health Econ. 2022;82: 102594.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Kondilis E, Gavana M, Giannakopoulos S, Smyrnakis E, Dombros N, Benos A. Payments and quality of care in private for-profit and public hospitals in Greece. BMC Health Serv Res. 2011;11:234.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. Hart O, Shleifer A, Vishny R. The proper scope of government: theory and an application to prisons. Q J Econ. 1997;112:1127–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Birdsall N, Nellis J. Winners and losers: assessing the distributional impact of privatization. World Dev J. 2003;31:1617–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Horwitz JR, Nichols A. Hospital service offerings still differ substantially by ownership type. Health Aff (Millwood). 2022;41:331–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Whitehead M, Dahlgren G, Evans T. Equity and health sector reforms: can low-income countries escape the medical poverty trap? Lancet. 2001;358:833–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Tountas Y, Karnaki P, Pavi E, Souliotis K. The, “unexpected” growth of the private health sector in Greece. Health Policy. 2005;74:167–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Maarse H. The privatization of health care in Europe: an eight-country analysis. J Health Polit Policy Law. 2006;31:981–1014.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Hu Y, Zhao F, Ding X, Zhang S, Li Z, Guo Y, et al. Rates of myopia development in young Chinese schoolchildren during the outbreak of COVID-19. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2021;139:1115–21.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  55. Wang J, Li Y, Musch DC, Wei N, Qi X, Ding G, et al. Progression of myopia in school-aged children after COVID-19 home confinement. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2021;139:293–300.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The author thanks Amanda (Yiwen) Huang, Ming Ni, Hongyu Guan, and Wenting Liu who provided supports in data collection and project management. We have obtained written permission from the individuals mentioned above.

Funding

This study was funded by National Natural Science Foundation of China (no. 72174009 and no. 72103180) and Peking University (no. 88412Y0061). The funders had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College of Economics and Management, Nanjing Agricultural University, Nanjing, China

    Wen Lin

  2. School of Public Health, Peking University, Beijing, 100191, China

    Xiaodong Dong & Junling Zhao

  3. The Fred Hollows Foundation, Melbourne, VIC, Australia

    Jack Hennessy

  4. Monash Business School, Centre for Health Economics, Monash University, Caulfield East, VIC, Australia

    Jack Hennessy

  5. China Center for Health Development Studies, Peking University, Beijing, 100191, China

    Xiaodong Dong, Junling Zhao & Xiaochen Ma

Authors
  1. Wen Lin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Xiaodong Dong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jack Hennessy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Junling Zhao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Xiaochen Ma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Concept and design: Ma, Lin. Acquisition of data: Ma, Dong, Zhao. Analysis and interpretation: Lin, Dong, Ma. Drafting of manuscript: Lin, Dong, Jack, Ma. Critical revision of paper for important content: Lin, Ma, Dong, Jack. Statistical analysis: Lin, Dong. Obtaining of funding: Ma. Supervision: Ma.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Xiaochen Ma.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

Wen Lin, Xiaodong Dong, Jack Hennessy, Junling Zhao, and Xiaochen Ma have no conflicts of interest that are directly relevant to the content of this article.

Ethics Approval

This study received ethical approval from Peking University Institutional Review Board Office (IRB00001052-22097).

Consent to Participate

All respondents were informed about the study and its potential risks and benefits prior to participation. Respondents had to sign an informed consent to participate in the study and to have their data used to develop the results contained in this paper. In addition, participation was voluntarily and the participant could stop at any time.

Consent to Publish

Not applicable.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (PDF 436 KB)

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lin, W., Dong, X., Hennessy, J. et al. Exploring the Preferences of Parents of Children with Myopia in Rural China for Eye Care Services Under Privatization Policy: Evidence from a Discrete Choice Experiment. Patient 17, 133–145 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-023-00660-9

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-023-00660-9

Search

Navigation