Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2024 Aug;25(6):1071-1085.
doi: 10.1007/s10198-023-01650-2. Epub 2023 Dec 15.

The elicitation of patient and physician preferences for calculating consumer-based composite measures on hospital report cards: results of two discrete choice experiments

Martin Emmert  1 , Stefan Rohrbacher  2 , Florian Meier  3 , Laura Heppe  4 , Cordula Drach  4 , Anja Schindler  5 , Uwe Sander  5 , Christiane Patzelt  5 , Cornelia Frömke  5 , Oliver Schöffski  4 , Michael Lauerer  2
Affiliations

The elicitation of patient and physician preferences for calculating consumer-based composite measures on hospital report cards: results of two discrete choice experiments

Martin Emmert et al. Eur J Health Econ. 2024 Aug.

Abstract

The calculation of aggregated composite measures is a widely used strategy to reduce the amount of data on hospital report cards. Therefore, this study aims to elicit and compare preferences of both patients as well as referring physicians regarding publicly available hospital quality information METHODS: Based on systematic literature reviews as well as qualitative analysis, two discrete choice experiments (DCEs) were applied to elicit patients' and referring physicians' preferences. The DCEs were conducted using a fractional factorial design. Statistical data analysis was performed using multinomial logit models RESULTS: Apart from five identical attributes, one specific attribute was identified for each study group, respectively. Overall, 322 patients (mean age 68.99) and 187 referring physicians (mean age 53.60) were included. Our models displayed significant coefficients for all attributes (p < 0.001 each). Among patients, "Postoperative complication rate" (20.6%; level range of 1.164) was rated highest, followed by "Mobility at hospital discharge" (19.9%; level range of 1.127), and ''The number of cases treated" (18.5%; level range of 1.045). In contrast, referring physicians valued most the ''One-year revision surgery rate'' (30.4%; level range of 1.989), followed by "The number of cases treated" (21.0%; level range of 1.372), and "Postoperative complication rate" (17.2%; level range of 1.123) CONCLUSION: We determined considerable differences between both study groups when calculating the relative value of publicly available hospital quality information. This may have an impact when calculating aggregated composite measures based on consumer-based weighting.

Keywords: Composite measures; Discrete choice experiment; Hospital choice; Hospital report cards; Public reporting.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Example choice task for patients
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Graphic display of level estimates with 95% CI (discrete choice experiment) and mean relative importance of attributes for both subgroups for the hospital choice
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

References

    1. Totten, A.M., Wagner, J., Tiwari, A., O`Haire, C., Griffin, J., Walker, M.: Public reporting as a quality improvement strategy: closing the quality gap: revisiting the state of the science. In: AHRQ Publication No. 12-E011-EF. Evidence Report/Technology Assessment; Number 208. (2012) - PMC - PubMed
    1. Berwick, D.M., James, B., Coye, M.J.: Connections between quality measurement and improvement. Med. Care 41(1), I30–I38 (2003) - PubMed
    1. Contandriopoulos, D., Champagne, F., Denis, J.-L.: The multiple causal pathways between performance measures’ use and effects. Med. Care Res. Rev. 71(1), 3–20 (2014). 10.1177/1077558713496320 10.1177/1077558713496320 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Emmert, M., Schindler, A., Drach, C., et al.: The use intention of hospital report cards among patients in the presence or absence of patient-reported outcomes. Health Policy 126(6), 541–548 (2022). 10.1016/j.healthpol.2022.03.015 10.1016/j.healthpol.2022.03.015 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Hussey, P.S., Luft, H.S., McNamara, P.: Public reporting of provider performance at a crossroads in the United States: summary of current barriers and recommendations on how to move forward. Med. Care Res. Re. MCRR. 71(5 Suppl), 5S-16S (2014). 10.1177/107755871453598010.1177/1077558714535980 - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources