Views of older people on cataract surgery options: An assessment of preferences by conjoint analysis

Quality and Safety in Health Care

Volumn 12, Issue 1, 2003, Pages 13-17

  Ross, M A ^a   Avery, A J ^a   Foss, A J E ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NOTTINGHAM   (United Kingdom)

^b QUEEN S MEDICAL CENTRE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CATARACT; CATARACT EXTRACTION; GENERAL PRACTICE; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HUMAN; INTERVIEW; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; PATIENT ATTITUDE; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATION; RISK ASSESSMENT; UNITED KINGDOM;

EID: 0037326325     PISSN: 09638172     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/qhc.12.1.13     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. The Bristol Royal Infirmary Enquiry. Learning from Bristol: the report of the public enquiry into children's heart surgery at the Bristol Royal Infirmary 1984-1995. London: The Stationery Office, 2001.
2. Department of Health. A guide to consent for examination or treatment HC(90)22. London: Department of Health, 1990.
3. Allinson R, Metrikin D, Fante R. Incidence of vitreous loss among third-year residents performing phakoemulisification. Ophthalmology 1992;99:726-30.
4. Cruz O, Wallace G, Gay C, et al. Visual results and complications of phacoemulsification with intraocular lens implantation performed by ophthalmology residents. Ophthalmology 1992;99:448-52.
5. Powe N, Schein O, Gieser S, et al. Synthesis of the literature on visual acuity and complications following cataract extraction with intraocular lens implantation. Arch Ophthalmol 1994;112:239-52.
6. NHS Executive. Action on cataracts: good practice guidance. London: Department of Health, 2000.
7. Ryan M, Scott DA, Reeves C, et al. Eliciting public preferences for healthcare: a systematic review of techniques. Health Technol Assess 2001;5:1-186.
8. Bunch W, Chapman R. Patient preferences in surgery for scoliosis. J Bone Joint Surg 1995;67-A:794-9.
9. Van der Pol M, Cairns J. Establishing patient preferences for blood transfusion support: an application of conjoint analysis. J Health Serv Res Policy 1998;3:70-6.
10. Ryan M. Using conjoint analysis to take account of patient preferences and go beyond health outcomes: an application to in vitro tertilisation. Soc Sci Med 1999;48:535-46.
11. Spoth R. Simulating smokers' acceptance of modifications in a cessation program. Public Health Rep 1992;107:81-92.
12. Harrision D, Cooke C. An elucidation of factors influencing physicians' willingness to perform elective female sterilization. Obstet Gynaecol 1992;72:565-70.
13. Singh J, Cuttler L, Shin M, et al. Medical decision-making and the patient. Understanding preference patterns for growth hormone therapy using conjoint analysis. Med Care 1998;36:AS31-45.
14. Chinburapa V, Larson L, Brucks M, et al. Physician prescribing decisions: the effects of situational involvement and task complexity on information acquisition and decision making. Soc Sci Med 1993;36:1473-82.
15. Ryan M, Farrar S. Using conjoint analysis to elicit preferences for health care. BMJ 2000;320:1530-3.
16. Garb H. A conjoint measurement analysis of clinical predictions. J Clin Psychol 1983;39:295-301.
17. Orkin FK, Greenhow DE. A study of decision making: how a faculty define competence. Anesthesiology 1978;48:267-71.
18. Rosko MD, McKenna W. Modeling consumer choices of health plans: a comparison of two techniques. Soc Sci Med 1983;17:421-9.
19. Parker BR, Srinivasan V. A consumer preference approach to the planning of rural primary health-care facilities. Operations Res 1976;24:991-1025.
20. Shemwell DJ, Yavas U. Congregate care facility selection: a conjoint approach. Health Marketing Q 1997;14:109-20.
21. Carroll NV, Gagnon J. Consumer demand for patient-orientated pharmacy services. Am J Public Health 1984;74:609-11.
22. Ryan M, Bate A, Eastmond C, et al. Use of discrete choice experiments to elicit preferences. Qual Health Care 2001;10(Suppl 1):i55-60.
23. SPSS. SPSS categories 6.1. Chicago, USA: SPSS Inc, 1994.
24. Kahn H, Leibowitz H, Ganley J, et al. The Framingham eye study: (i) outline and major prevalence findings. Am J Epidemiol 1977;106:17-32.
25. Gibson J, Rosenthal A, Lavery J. A study of the prevalence of eye disease in the elderly in an English community. Trans Ophthalmol Soc UK 1985;104:196-203.
26. Klein B, Klein R, Linton K. Prevalence of age-related lens opacities in a population. Ophthalmology 1992;99:546-52.
27. OPCS. 1991 Census county report: Nottinghamshire (Part 1). London: HMSO, 1992.
28. Office for National Statistics. Population trends. London: The Stationery Office, 1999: 53.
29. Office for National Statistics. Social trends 29. London: HMSO, 1999.
30. Jarman B. Identification of underprivileged areas. BMJ 1983;286:1705-9.