scholarly journals Intensive care doctors and nurses personal preferences for Intensive Care, as compared to the general population: a discrete choice experiment

Critical Care ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew H. Anstey ◽  
Imogen A. Mitchell ◽  
Charlie Corke ◽  
Lauren Murray ◽  
Marion Mitchell ◽  
...  

Abstract Background To test the hypothesis that Intensive Care Unit (ICU) doctors and nurses differ in their personal preferences for treatment from the general population, and whether doctors and nurses make different choices when thinking about themselves, as compared to when they are treating a patient. Methods Cross sectional, observational study conducted in 13 ICUs in Australia in 2017 using a discrete choice experiment survey. Respondents completed a series of choice sets, based on hypothetical situations which varied in the severity or likelihood of: death, cognitive impairment, need for prolonged treatment, need for assistance with care or requiring residential care. Results A total of 980 ICU staff (233 doctors and 747 nurses) participated in the study. ICU staff place the highest value on avoiding ending up in a dependent state. The ICU staff were more likely to choose to discontinue therapy when the prognosis was worse, compared with the general population. There was consensus between ICU staff personal views and the treatment pathway likely to be followed in 69% of the choices considered by nurses and 70% of those faced by doctors. In 27% (1614/5945 responses) of the nurses and 23% of the doctors (435/1870 responses), they felt that aggressive treatment would be continued for the hypothetical patient but they would not want that for themselves. Conclusion The likelihood of returning to independence (or not requiring care assistance) was reported as the most important factor for ICU staff (and the general population) in deciding whether to receive ongoing treatments. Goals of care discussions should focus on this, over likelihood of survival.

2021 ◽  
pp. 0272989X2199661
Author(s):  
Amelia E. Street ◽  
Deborah J. Street ◽  
Gordon M. Flynn

Objective To explore the key patient attributes important to members of the Australian general population when prioritizing patients for the final intensive care unit (ICU) bed in a pandemic over-capacity scenario. Methods A discrete-choice experiment administered online asked respondents ( N = 306) to imagine the COVID-19 caseload had surged and that they were lay members of a panel tasked to allocate the final ICU bed. They had to decide which patient was more deserving for each of 14 patient pairs. Patients were characterized by 5 attributes: age, occupation, caregiver status, health prior to being infected, and prognosis. Respondents were randomly allocated to one of 7 sets of 14 pairs. Multinomial, mixed logit, and latent class models were used to model the observed choice behavior. Results A latent class model with 3 classes was found to be the most informative. Two classes valued active decision making and were slightly more likely to choose patients with caregiving responsibilities over those without. One of these classes valued prognosis most strongly, with a decreasing probability of bed allocation for those 65 y and older. The other valued both prognosis and age highly, with decreasing probability of bed allocation for those 45 y and older and a slight preference in favor of frontline health care workers. The third class preferred more random decision-making strategies. Conclusions For two-thirds of those sampled, prognosis, age, and caregiving responsibilities were the important features when making allocation decisions, although the emphasis varies. The remainder appeared to choose randomly.


2018 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 235-246 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mehdi Najafzadeh ◽  
Sebastian Schneeweiss ◽  
Niteesh K. Choudhry ◽  
Jerry Avorn ◽  
Joshua J. Gagne

PLoS ONE ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 8 (12) ◽  
pp. e82984 ◽  
Author(s):  
Krishna D. Rao ◽  
Mandy Ryan ◽  
Zubin Shroff ◽  
Marko Vujicic ◽  
Sudha Ramani ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
pp. 002203452198994
Author(s):  
D. Boyers ◽  
M. van der Pol ◽  
V. Watson ◽  
T. Lamont ◽  
B. Goulao ◽  
...  

Scale and polish (SP) and oral hygiene advice (OHA) are commonly provided in primary care dental practice to help prevent periodontal disease. These services are widely consumed by service users, incurring substantial cost, without any clear evidence of clinical benefit. This article aims to elicit general population preferences and willingness to pay (WTP) for preventative dental care services and outcomes. An online discrete-choice experiment (DCE) was completed by a nationally representative sample of the UK general population. Respondents each answered 10 choice tasks that varied in terms of service attributes (SP, OHA, and provider of care), outcomes (bleeding gums and aesthetics), and cost. Choice tasks were selected using a pivoted segmented experimental design to improve task realism. An error components panel logit model was used to analyze the data. Marginal WTP (mWTP) for each attribute and level was calculated. In total, 667 respondents completed the DCE. Respondents valued more frequent SP, care provided by a dentist, and personalized OHA. Respondents were willing to pay for dental packages that generated less frequent (“never” or “hardly ever”) bleeding on brushing and teeth that look and feel at least “moderately clean.” Respondents were willing to pay more (+£145/y) for improvements in an aesthetic outcome from “very unclean” (−£85/y) to “very clean” (+£60/y) than they were for reduced bleeding frequency (+£100/y) from “very often” (−£54/y) to “never” (+£36/y). The general population value routinely provided SP, even in the absence of reductions in bleeding on brushing. Dental care service providers must consider service user preferences, including preferences for both health and nonhealth outcomes, as a key factor in any service redesign. Furthermore, the results provide mWTP estimates that can be used in cost-benefit analysis of these dental care services.


2020 ◽  
Vol 7 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mondher Toumi ◽  
Aurélie Millier ◽  
Olivier Cristeau ◽  
Katia Thokagevistk-Desroziers ◽  
Julie Dorey ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 23 ◽  
pp. S711
Author(s):  
A. Martin ◽  
G. Morgan ◽  
J. O'hara ◽  
B. Mulhern ◽  
E.K. Sawyer ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document