Patient preferences for specialist outpatient video consultations: A discrete choice experiment
Abstract
Introduction
Telehealth has been shown to improve access to care, reduce personal expenses and reduce the need for travel. Despite these benefits, patients may be less inclined to seek a telehealth service, if they consider it inferior to an in-person encounter. The aims of this study were to identify patient preferences for attributes of a healthcare service and to quantify the value of these attributes.
Methods
We surveyed patients who had taken an outpatient telehealth consult in the previous year using a survey that included a discrete choice experiment. We investigated patient preferences for attributes of healthcare delivery and their willingness to pay for out-of-pocket costs.
Results
Patients (n = 62) preferred to have a consultation, regardless of type, than no consultation at all. Patients preferred healthcare services with lower out-of-pocket costs, higher levels of perceived benefit and less time away from usual activities (p < 0.008). Most patients preferred specialist care over in-person general practitioner care. Their order of preference to obtain specialist care was a videoconsultation into the patient’s local general practitioner practice or hospital (p < 0.003), a videoconsultation into the home, and finally travelling for in-person appointment. Patients were willing to pay out-of-pocket costs for attributes they valued: to be seen by a specialist over videoconference ($129) and to reduce time away from usual activities ($160).
Conclusion
Patients value specialist care, lower out-of-pocket costs and less time away from usual activities. Telehealth is more likely than in-person care to cater to these preferences in many instances.
Get full access to this article
View all access and purchase options for this article.
References
1. Greenhalgh T, Shaw S, Wherton J, et al. Real-World implementation of video outpatient consultations at macro, meso, and micro levels: mixed-method study. J Med Internet Res 2018; 20: e150.
2. Portnoy JM, Waller M, De Lurgio S,. et al. Telemedicine is as effective as in-person visits for patients with asthma. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol 2016; 117: 241–245.
3. Ekeland AG, Bowes A, Flottorp S. Effectiveness of telemedicine: a systematic review of reviews. Int J Med Inf 2010; 79: 736–771.
4. Kruse CS, Krowski N, Rodriguez B,. et al. Telehealth and patient satisfaction: a systematic review and narrative analysis. BMJ Open 2017; 7: e016242.
5. Moffatt JJ, Eley DS. The reported benefits of telehealth for rural Australians. Aust Health Rev 2010; 34: 276–281.
6. Raven M, Butler C, Bywood P. Video-based telehealth in Australian primary health care: current use and future potential. Aust J Prim Health 2013; 19: 283–286.
7. Gustke SS, Balch DC, West VL,. et al. Patient satisfaction with telemedicine. Telemed J 2000; 6: 5–13.
8. Mueller M, Knop M, Niehaves B,. et al. Investigating the acceptance of video consultation by patients in rural primary care: empirical comparison of preusers and actual users. JMIR Med Inform 2020; 8: e20813.
9. Eze ND, Mateus C, Oliveira Hashiguchi TC. Telemedicine in the OECD: an umbrella review of clinical and cost-effectiveness, patient experience and implementation. PloS One 2020; 15: e0237585.
10. Call VR, Erickson LD, Dailey NK, et al. Attitudes toward telemedicine in urban, rural, and highly rural communities. Telemed e-Health 2015; 21: 644–651.
11. Horsham C, Loescher LJ, Whiteman DC,. et al. Consumer acceptance of patient-performed mobile teledermoscopy for the early detection of melanoma. Br J Dermatol 2016; 175: 1301–1310.
12. Spinks J, Janda M, Soyer HP,. et al. Consumer preferences for teledermoscopy screening to detect melanoma early. J Telemed Telecare 2016; 22: 39–46.
13. Snoswell CL, Whitty JA, Caffery LJ,. et al. Direct-to-consumer mobile teledermoscopy for skin cancer screening: preliminary results demonstrating willingness-to-pay in Australia. J Telemed Telecare 2018; 24: 683–689.
14. Donelan K, Barreto EA, Sossong S, et al. Patient and clinician experiences with telehealth for patient follow-up care. Am J Manag Care 2019; 25: 40–44.
15. Chudner I, Goldfracht M, Goldblatt H,. et al. Video or In-clinic consultation? Selection of attributes as preparation for a discrete choice experiment Among Key stakeholders. Patient 2019; 12: 69–82.
16. Cranen K, Groothuis-Oudshoorn CG, Vollenbroek-Hutten MM MJ IJ. Toward patient-centered telerehabilitation design: understanding chronic pain patients’ preferences for web-based exercise telerehabilitation using a discrete choice experiment. J Med Internet Res 2017; 19: e26.
17. Kaambwa B, Ratcliffe J, Shulver W, et al. Investigating the preferences of older people for telehealth as a new model of health care service delivery: a discrete choice experiment. J Telemed Telecare 2017; 23: 301–313.
18. Snoswell C, Smith AC, Scuffham PA,. et al. Economic evaluation strategies in telehealth: obtaining a more holistic valuation of telehealth interventions. J Telemed Telecare 2017; 23: 792–796.
19. Bergmo TS. Approaches to economic evaluation in telemedicine. J Telemed Telecare 2012; 18: 181–184.
20. Snoswell CL, Taylor ML, Comans TA,. et al. Determining if telehealth can reduce health system costs: scoping review. J Med Internet Res 2020; 22: e17298.
21. Wade VA, Karnon J, Elshaug AG,. et al. A systematic review of economic analyses of telehealth services using real time video communication. BMC Health Serv Res 2010; 10: 233.
22. Liddy C, Drosinis P, Armstrong CD,. et al. What are the cost savings associated with providing access to specialist care through the champlain BASE eConsult service? A costing evaluation. BMJ Open 2016; 6: e010920.
23. Smith AC, Thomas E, Snoswell CL, et al. Telehealth for global emergencies: implications for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). J Telemed Telecare 2020; 26: 309–313.
24. Ryan M, Gerard K, Amaya-Amaya M. Using discrete choice experiments to value health and health care. Vol 11. Netherlands: Springer Science & Business Media; 2007.
25. McFadden D. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. 1973.
26. Queensland Governement. The Patient Travel Subsidy Scheme (PTSS). https://www.qld.gov.au/health/services/travel/subsidies (2020, accessed May 2020).
27. Caffery LJ, Bradford NK, Smith AC,. et al. How telehealth facilitates the provision of culturally appropriate healthcare for indigenous Australians. J Telemed Telecare 2018; 24: 676–682.
28. Devadula S, Langbecker D, Vecchio P,. et al. Tele-Rheumatology to regional hospital outpatient clinics: patient perspectives on a new model of care. Telemed e-Health 2020; 26: 912–919.
29. State of Queensland (Queensland Health). Better Health for the Bush: A plan for safe, applicable healthcare for rural and remote Queensland. June 2014.
30. Martin-Khan M, Fatehi F, Kezilas M, et al. Establishing a centralised telehealth service increases telehealth activity at a tertiary hospital. BMC Health Serv Res 2015; 15: 534.
31. Hole AR. Fitting mixed logit models by using maximum simulated likelihood. Stata J 2007; 7: 388–401.
32. Hauber AB, Gonzalez JM, Groothuis-Oudshoorn CG, et al. Statistical methods for the analysis of discrete choice experiments: a report of the ISPOR conjoint analysis good research practices task force. Value Health 2016; 19: 300–315.
33. Hole A. WTP: Stata module to estimate confidence intervals for willingness to pay measures. 2007.
34. Australian Government Department of Health. Modified monash model. Commonwealth of Australia. https://www.health.gov.au/health-workforce/health-workforce-classifications/modified-monash-model (2020, accessed October 2020).
35. Qureshi AA, Brandling-Bennett HA, Wittenberg E,. et al. Willingness-to-pay stated preferences for telemedicine versus in-person visits in patients with a history of psoriasis or melanoma. Telemed e-Health 2006; 12: 639–643.
36. Chang J, Savage SJ, Waldman DM. Estimating willingness to pay for online health services with discrete-choice experiments. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 2017; 15: 491–500.
37. Saeed SA, Diamond J, Bloch RM. Use of telepsychiatry to improve care for people with mental illness in rural north Carolina. N C Med J 2011; 72: 219–222.
38. Snoswell CL, Comans TA. Does the choice between a telehealth and an in-person appointment change patient attendance? Telemed e-Health. 2020.
39. Smith AC, Youngberry K, Christie F, et al. The family costs of attending hospital outpatient appointments via videoconference and in person. J Telemed Telecare 2003; 9 Suppl 2: S58–S61.
40. Australian Bureau of Statistics. Average weekly earnings, Australia. https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/labour/earnings-and-work-hours/average-weekly-earnings-australia/latest-release (May 2020, accessed January 2021).
41. Ryan M, Farrar S. Using conjoint analysis to elicit preferences for health care. Bmj-Brit Med J 2000; 320: 1530–1533.
42. Lancsar E, Savage E. Deriving welfare measures from discrete choice experiments: inconsistency between current methods and random utility and welfare theory. Health Econ 2004; 13: 901–907.
Cite article
Cite article
Cite article
OR
Download to reference manager
If you have citation software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice
Information, rights and permissions
Information
Published In
Article first published online: June 18, 2021
Issue published: October 2023
Keywords
PubMed: 34142895
Authors
Metrics and citations
Metrics
Journals metrics
This article was published in Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare.
VIEW ALL JOURNAL METRICSArticle usage*
Total views and downloads: 460
*Article usage tracking started in December 2016
Articles citing this one
Receive email alerts when this article is cited
Web of Science: 9 view articles Opens in new tab
Crossref: 5
-
Attendance at remote versus in-person outpatient appointments in an NH...
-
Future Trends to Watch for Value-Based Care
-
Patients' choice preferences for specialist outpatient online consulta...
-
Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for eHealth and Its Influencing Factors:...
-
Specialist consultation activity and costs in Australia: Before and af...
Figures and tables
Figures & Media
Tables
View Options
Get access
Access options
If you have access to journal content via a personal subscription, university, library, employer or society, select from the options below:
loading institutional access options
Alternatively, view purchase options below:
Purchase 24 hour online access to view and download content.
Access journal content via a DeepDyve subscription or find out more about this option.
