Physician and patient willingness to pay for electronic cardiovascular disease management

International Journal of Medical Informatics

Volumn 83, Issue 7, 2014, Pages 517-528

  Deal, Ken ^a   Keshavjee, Karim ^b   Troyan, Sue ^c   Kyba, Robert ^d   Holbrook, Anne Marie ^c  

^a MCMASTER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^b InfoClin   (Canada)

^c MCMASTER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^d Strategic Global Counsel   (Canada)

Author keywords

Chronic disease management; Discrete choice; Electronic decision support; Patient preferences; Physician preferences; Vascular disease; Willingness to pay

Indexed keywords

DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEMS; ECONOMICS; HOSPITAL DATA PROCESSING; NURSING; SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT;

CHRONIC DISEASE MANAGEMENT; DECISION SUPPORTS; DISCRETE CHOICE; PATIENT PREFERENCES; PHYSICIAN PREFERENCES; VASCULAR DISEASE; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

DISEASES;

ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM; DEMOGRAPHY; ELECTRONIC COMMERCE; FEE; FEMALE; GENERAL PRACTITIONER; GOVERNMENT; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; MALE; PATIENT CODING; PATIENT INFORMATION; PATIENT PREFERENCE; PHYSICIAN ATTITUDE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; WILLINGNESS TO PAY; AGED; CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASES; DECISION MAKING; DISEASE MANAGEMENT; ECONOMICS; ELECTRONIC MEDICAL RECORD; MIDDLE AGED; PATIENT; PHYSICIAN; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PSYCHOLOGY; UTILIZATION;

AGED; CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASES; CHOICE BEHAVIOR; DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEMS, CLINICAL; DISEASE MANAGEMENT; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MEDICAL RECORDS SYSTEMS, COMPUTERIZED; MIDDLE AGED; PATIENT PREFERENCE; PATIENTS; PHYSICIANS; PRACTICE GUIDELINES AS TOPIC;

EID: 84902085047     PISSN: 13865056     EISSN: 18728243     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2014.04.007     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. Schoen C., Osborn R., Squires D., et al. A survey of primary care doctors in ten countries shows progress in use of health information technology, less in other areas. Health Affairs 2012, 31(12):2805-2816.
2. Mollon B., Chong J.R., Holbrook A., et al. Features predicting the success of computerized decision support for prescribing: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. BMC Med. Inform. Decis. Making 2009, 9:1-28.
3. McKibbon K.A., Lokker C., Handler S.M., et al. The effectiveness of integrated health information technologies across the phases of medication management: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 2012, 19:22e-30e.
4. Holroyd-Leduc J.M., Lorenzetti D., Straus S.E., et al. The impact of the electronic medical record on structure, process, and outcomes within primary care: a systematic review of the evidence. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 2011, 18:732-737.
5. O'Reilly D., Holbrook A., Blackhouse G., et al. Cost-effectiveness of a shared computerized decision support system for diabetes linked to electronic medical records. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 2012, 19:341-345. Published online 2011 November 3. 10.1136/amiajnl-2011-000371.
6. Public Health Agency of Canada.Leading Causes of Death, Canada Males and Females Combined 2005, Available from: http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/publicat/lcd-pcd97/pdf/lcd-pcd-t1-eng.pdf (cited 19.03.12).
7. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, "Leading Causes of Death," FastStats. Available from: (accessed 27.04.12). http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/lcod.htm.
8. Yusuf S., Hawken S., Ounpuu S., et al. Effect of potentially modifiable risk factors associated with myocardial infarction in 52 countries (the INTERHEART study): case-control study. Lancet 2004, 364:937-952.
9. Whalley B., Rees K., Davies P., et al. Psychological interventions for coronary heart disease. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2011, 8:CD002902. Available from: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD002902.pub3/pdf. 10.1002/14651858.CD002902.pub3.
10. Heran B.S., Chen J.M., Ebrahim S., et al. Exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation for coronary heart disease. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2011, 7:CD001800.
11. Reboldi G., Gentile G., Angeli F., et al. Effects of intensive blood pressure reduction on myocardial infarction and stroke in diabetes: a meta-analysis in 73,913 patients. J. Hypertens. 2011, 29:1253-1269.
12. Ebrahim S., Taylor F., Ward K., et al. Multiple risk factor interventions for primary prevention of coronary heart disease. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2011, 1.:CD001561.
13. Holbrook A., Pullenayegum E., Thabane L., et al. Shared electronic vascular risk decision support in primary care: computerization of medical practices for the enhancement of therapeutic effectiveness (COMPETE III) randomized trial. Arch. Intern. Med. 2011, 171:1736-1744.
14. Ryan M., Gerard K. Using discrete choice experiments to value health care programmes: current practice and future research reflections. Appl. Health Econ. Health Policy 2003, 2:55-64.
15. King M.T., Hall J., Lancsar E., et al. Patient preferences for managing asthma: results from a discrete choice experiment. Health Econ. 2007, 16:703-717.
16. Cunningham C.E., Deal K., Rimas H., et al. Using conjoint analysis to model the preferences of different patient segments for attributes of patient-centered care. Patient 2008, 1:317-330.
17. Hauber B.A. Issues that may affect the validity and reliability of willingness-to-pay estimates in stated-preference studies. Patient 2008, 1:249-250.
18. Telser H., Becker K., Zweifel P. Validity and reliability of willingness-to-pay estimates: evidence from two overlapping discrete-choice experiments. Patient 2008, 1:283-298.
19. Louviere J.J., Hensher D.A., Swait J.D. Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Application 2000, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
20. McFadden D. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. Frontiers in Econometrics 1974, 105-142. Academic Press, New York. P. Zarembka (Ed.).
21. Telser H., Zweifel P. Validity of discrete-choice experiments: evidence for health risk reduction. Appl. Econ. 2007, 39:69-78.
22. Bouma B.J., van der Meulen J.H., van den Brink R.B., et al. Validity of conjoint analysis to study clinical decision making in elderly patients with aortic stenosis. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 2004, 57:815-823.
23. Kamakura W., Muammer O. A multi-trait multi-method validity test of Partworth estimates. Conjoint Measurement: Methods and Applications 2000, 145-166. Springer-Verlag, Berlin. 4th ed. G. Anders, A. Herrmann, F. Huber (Eds.).
24. Marshall D.A., Johnson F.R., Kulin N., et al. How do physician assessments of patient preferences for colorectal cancer screening tests differ from actual preferences? A comparison in Canada and the United States using a stated-choice survey. Health Econ. 2009, 18:1420-1439.
25. Roux L., Uback C., Donaldson C., et al. Valuing the benefits of weight loss programs: an application of the discrete choice experiment. Obesity Res. 2004, 12:1342-1351.
26. Cunningham C.E., Deal K., Rimas H., et al. Providing information to parents of children with mental health problems: a discrete choice conjoint analysis of professional preferences. J. Abnorm. Child Psychol. 2009, 37:1089-1102.
27. Ryan M. Using conjoint analysis to go beyond health outcomes and take account of patient preferences: an application to in vitro fertilization. Soc. Sci. Med. 1999, 48:535-546.
28. Cunningham C.E., Vaillancourt T., Rimas H., et al. Modeling the bullying prevention program preferences of educators: a discrete choice conjoint experiment. J. Abnorm. Child Psychol. 2009, 37:929-943. 10.1007/s10802-009-9324-2.
29. Cunningham C.E., Deal K., Neville A., et al. Modeling the problem-based learning preferences of McMaster University undergraduate medical students using a discrete choice conjoint experiment. Adv. Health Sci. Educ. Theory Pract. 2009, 3:245-266.
30. Bridges J.F.P., Hauber B., Marshall D.A., et al. A checklist for conjoint analysis applications in health: report of the ISPOR conjoint analysis good research practices taskforce. Value Health 2011, 14:403-413.
31. Louviere J.J., Lancsar E. Discrete choice experiments in health: the good, the bad, the ugly and toward a brighter future. Health Econ. Policy Law 2009, 4:527-546.
32. Kuhfeld W. Efficient Experimental Designs Using Computerized Searches. Sawtooth Software Research Paper Series 1997, Sawtooth Software Inc., Available from: http://www.sawtoothsoftware.com/download/techpap/effdesgn.pdf.
33. Johnson F.R., Mohamed A.F., Ozdemir S., Marshall D.A., Phillips K.A. How does cost matter in health-care discrete-choice experiments?. Health Econ. 2011, 30:323-330.
34. Rolfe J., Bennett J. The impact of offering two versus three alternatives in choice modelling experiments. Ecol. Econ. 2009, 68:1140-1148.
35. Allenby G.M., Ginter J.L. Using extremes to design products and segment markets. J. Mark. Res. 1995, 32:392-403.
36. Allenby G.M., Rossi P.E. Marketing models of consumer heterogeneity. J. Econ. 1999, 89:57-78.
37. Rossi P.E., Allenby G.M., McCulloch R. Bayesian Statistics and Marketing 2005, John Wiley & Sons, West Sussex, England.
38. Hensher D.A., Rose J.M., Greene W.H. Applied Choice Analysis: A Primer 2005, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
39. Vermunt J.K., Magidson J. Latent class models for classification. Comput. Stat. Data Anal. 2003, 41:531-537.
40. Orme B.K. Assessing the Monetary Value of Attribute Levels with Conjoint Analysis: Warnings and Suggestions. Sawtooth Software Research Paper Series 2001, Sawtooth Software Inc., Available from: http://www.sawtoothsoftware.com/download/techpap/monetary.pdf.
41. Tang J., Grenville A., Morwitz V.G., et al. Influencing feature price tradeoff decisions in CBC experiments. Proceedings of the Sawtooth Software Conference 2009, 247-261. Available from: http://www.sawtoothsoftware.com/download/techpap/2009Proceedings.pdf.
42. Orme B.K. Getting Started with Conjoint Analysis: Strategies for Product Design and Pricing Research 2010, Research Publishers LLC, Madison.
43. SSI Web v7.0 Manual 2012, April, Sawtooth Software, Inc., Orem, Utah.
44. De Bekker-Grob E.W., Ryan M., Gerard K. Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature. Health Econ. 2012, 21:145-172.
45. Mark T., Swait J. Using stated preference and revealed preference modeling to evaluate prescribing decisions. Health Econ. 2004, 13:563-573.
46. Wen K.Y., Gustafson D.H., Hawkins R.P., et al. Developing and validating a model to predict the success of an IHCS implementation: the Readiness for Implementation Model. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 2010, 17:707-713.