The relative importance of quality of care information when choosing a hospital for surgical treatment: A hospital choice experiment

Medical Decision Making

Volumn 31, Issue 6, 2011, Pages 816-827

  Marang Van De Mheen, P J ^a   Dijs Elsinga, J ^a   Otten, W ^a,b   Versluijs, M ^c   Smeets, H J ^d   Vree, R ^e   Van Der Made, W J ^a   Kievit, J ^a  

^a LEIDEN UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^b TNO   (Netherlands)

^c Federation of Patients and Consumer Organisations in the Netherlands (NPCF)   (Netherlands)

^d MEDICAL CENTER HAAGLANDEN   (Netherlands)

^e Department of Surgery ^*  (Netherlands)

Author keywords

choice based conjoint analyses; hospital comparison; patient choice; performance measurement; quality of care; surgery

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; DECISION MAKING; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HOSPITAL; INTERNET; QUESTIONNAIRE; SURGERY;

CHOICE BEHAVIOR; HOSPITALS; INTERNET; QUALITY OF HEALTH CARE; QUESTIONNAIRES; SURGICAL PROCEDURES, OPERATIVE;

EID: 85047689042     PISSN: 0272989X     EISSN: 1552681X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X10386799     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Groene O, Skau JK, Frolich A. An international review of projects on hospital performance assessment. Int J Qual Health Care. 2008; 20 (3). 162-71 (Pubitemid 351753555)
2. Marshall MN, Shekelle PG, Leatherman S, Brook RH. The public release of performance data: what do we expect to gain? A review of the evidence. JAMA. 2000; 283 (14). 1866-74 (Pubitemid 30207624)
3. Faber M, Bosch M, Wollersheim H, Leatherman S, Grol R. Public reporting in health care: how do consumers use quality-of-care information? A systematic review. Med Care. 2009; 47 (1). 1-8
4. Fung CH, Lim YW, Mattke S, Damberg C, Shekelle PG. Systematic review: the evidence that publishing patient care performance data improves quality of care. Ann Intern Med. 2008; 148 (2). 111-23 (Pubitemid 351651554)
5. Utrecht, Netherlands: Netherlands Institute for Public Health and the Environment; 2006 :
6. Dijs-Elsinga J, Otten W, Versluijs M, et al. Choosing a hospital for surgery: the importance of information on quality of care. Med Decis Making. 2010; 30: 544-55
7. Lubalin JS, Harris-Kojetin LD. What do consumers want and need to know in making health care choices?. Med Care Res Rev. 1999; 56: 67-102
8. Ryan M, Farrar S. Using conjoint analysis to elicit preferences for health care. BMJ. 2000; 320: 1530-3 (Pubitemid 30330316)
9. Orme BK Madison, WI: Research Publishers, LLC; 2006:
10. Louviere JJ Newbury Park, CA: Sage; 1988:
11. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier; 2009 :
12. Marang-van de Mheen PJ, Stadlander MC, Kievit J. Adverse outcomes in surgical patients: implementation of a nationwide reporting system. Qual Saf Health Care. 2006 ; 15 (5). 320-4 (Pubitemid 44784804)
13. OrmeBK. Hierarchical Bayes: why all the attention?Sequim, WA: Sawtooth Software. Available from: URL: www.sawtoothsoftware.com; 2000.
14. Sequim, WA: Sawtooth Software; 2008 :
15. Tamhane AC. Multiple comparisons in model I one way ANOVA with unequal variances. Commun Statist. 1977; 9: 167-78
16. Marang-van de MheenPJDijs-ElsingaJOttenW. The importance of experienced adverse outcomes on patients' future choice of a hospital for surgery. Qual Saf Health Care. In press2010.
17. Heerlen/Voorburg, Netherlands: Statistics Netherlands; 2009 :
18. Simonson I, Tversky A. Choice in context: tradeoff contrasts and extremeness aversion. J Marketing Res. 1992; 29: 281-95
19. Haaijer R, Wedel M, Vriens M, Wansbeek T. Utility covariances and context effects in conjoint MNP models. Marketing Science. 1998; 17: 236-52 (Pubitemid 128184451)
20. Farley DO, Short PF, Elliott MN, et al. Effects of CAHPS health plan performance information on plan choices by New Jersey Medicaid beneficiaries. Health Serv Res. 2002; 37: 985-1007 (Pubitemid 36125128)
21. Harris KM. Can high quality overcome consumer resistance to restricted provider access? Evidence from a health plan choice experiment. Health Serv Res. 2002; 37: 551-71 (Pubitemid 34976708)
22. Hibbard JH, Jewett JJ. Will quality report cards help consumers?. Health Aff (Millwood). 1997; 16 (3). 218-28 (Pubitemid 127463732)
23. Coast J, Salisbury C, de Berker D, et al. Preferences for aspects of a dermatology consultation. Br J Dermatol. 2006; 155 (2). 387-92 (Pubitemid 44050574)
24. Vonberg RP, Sander C, Gastmeier P. Consumer attitudes about health care acquired infections: a German survey on factors considered important in the choice of a hospital. Am J Med Qual. 2008; 23 (1). 56-9
25. Den Haag, Netherlands: National Consumer Council; 2005 :