» Articles » PMID: 35585287

Heterogeneity in Preferences for Outcomes of Integrated Care for Persons with Multiple Chronic Diseases: a Latent Class Analysis of a Discrete Choice Experiment

Overview
Journal Qual Life Res
Date 2022 May 18
PMID 35585287
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Purpose: For an integrated care programme to be successful, preferences of the stakeholders involved should be aligned. The aim of this study is to investigate to which extent outcomes beyond health are valued and to study the heterogeneity of preferences of those involved in integrated care.

Methods: A discrete choice experiment (DCE) was conducted to elicit preferences for eight Triple Aim outcomes, i.e., physical functioning, psychological well-being, social relationships & participation, enjoyment of life, resilience, person-centeredness, continuity of care and total health and social care costs. Stakeholders were recruited among Dutch persons with multi-morbidity, informal caregivers, professionals, payers, and policymakers. A Bayesian mixed-logit model was used to analyse the data. Subsequently, a latent class analysis was performed to identify stakeholders with similar preferences.

Results: 739 stakeholders completed the DCE. Enjoyment of life was perceived as the most important outcome (relative importance: 0.221) across stakeholders, while total health and social care costs were perceived as least important (0.063). The latent class analysis identified four classes. The first class (19.9%) put most weight on experience with care outcomes. The second class (39%) favoured enjoyment of life. The third class (18%) focused relatively more on physical health. The fourth class (24%) had the least consistent preferences.

Conclusion: This study has highlighted the heterogeneity in views of stakeholders in integrated care on what is important in health(care) for persons with multi-morbidity. To accurately value integrated care a variety of outcomes beyond health-e.g., enjoyment of life and experience with care-should be taken into account.

Citing Articles

Integration of physical and mental health services for children and young people with eating disorders and functional symptom disorders: discrete choice experiment.

Massou E, Basher M, Bennett S, Ford T, Gandhi S, Heyman I BMC Health Serv Res. 2025; 25(1):11.

PMID: 39754205 PMC: 11697723. DOI: 10.1186/s12913-024-12157-8.


Preferences for Neurodevelopmental Follow-Up Care for Children: A Discrete Choice Experiment.

Sharma P, Kularatna S, Abell B, McPhail S, Senanayake S Patient. 2024; 17(6):645-662.

PMID: 39210193 PMC: 11461776. DOI: 10.1007/s40271-024-00717-3.


Preferences for Living Arrangements in Dementia: A Discrete Choice Experiment.

Speckemeier C, Abels C, Hofer K, Niemann A, Wasem J, Walendzik A Pharmacoecon Open. 2023; 8(1):65-78.

PMID: 37995011 PMC: 10781908. DOI: 10.1007/s41669-023-00452-9.

References
1.
Brennan P, Strombom I . Improving health care by understanding patient preferences: the role of computer technology. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 1998; 5(3):257-62. PMC: 61299. DOI: 10.1136/jamia.1998.0050257. View

2.
Soekhai V, de Bekker-Grob E, Ellis A, Vass C . Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: Past, Present and Future. Pharmacoeconomics. 2018; 37(2):201-226. PMC: 6386055. DOI: 10.1007/s40273-018-0734-2. View

3.
Mentzakis E, Ryan M, McNamee P . Using discrete choice experiments to value informal care tasks: exploring preference heterogeneity. Health Econ. 2010; 20(8):930-44. DOI: 10.1002/hec.1656. View

4.
Craig P, Dieppe P, Macintyre S, Michie S, Nazareth I, Petticrew M . Developing and evaluating complex interventions: the new Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ. 2008; 337:a1655. PMC: 2769032. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.a1655. View

5.
Hollander M, Prince M . Organizing healthcare delivery systems for persons with ongoing care needs and their families: a best practices framework. Healthc Q. 2008; 11(1):44-54, 2. DOI: 10.12927/hcq.2013.19497. View