Preferences for support in managing symptoms of an asthma flare-up: a pilot study of a discrete choice experiment

Figures & data

Table 1. Attributes, description, and levels as presented to participants in pilot study.

Feature	Description	Levels in choice card
Having a written plan that I can refer to	A personalized plan made out with a healthcare professional which you keep so that you can refer to it. It identifies the actions you need to take in response to your symptoms.	Yes No
Healthcare professional to consult with	The healthcare professional may have general medical knowledge (e.g. a GP) or may have specialist knowledge of asthma (e.g. respiratory nurses or respiratory doctors/consultants).	A general practitioner A respiratory nurse A respiratory doctor/consultant
Time to consultation	The time you have to wait to consult with a healthcare professional from the time you make the initial contact	Same day Next day Two days later
Method of communication	The medium through which you discuss your concerns with your healthcare professional	Face-to-face meeting Phone call
Healthcare professional’s knowledge of my health	The healthcare professional may have access to a record/notes of your medical history and/or knows you from previous consultations	Neither knows me nor has my notes Does not know me but has my notes Knows me and has my notes
Response to my concerns	How much your healthcare professional listens to your concerns and addresses them	Appears to listen Appears not to fully listen

Table 2. Example of a DCE choice set in Pilot study.

	Service A	Service B
Having a written plan that I can refer to	No	Yes
Healthcare professional to consult with	A respiratory nurse	A general practitioner
Time to consultation	Next day	Same day
Method of communication	Face-to-face meeting	Face-to-face meeting
Healthcare professional’s knowledge of my health	Knows me and has my notes	Does not know me but has my notes
Response to my concerns	Appears to listen	Appears not to fully listen

Table 3. Characteristics of participants. Data presented as mean (SD) or n (%).

Characteristic	n = 38
Age (years)	52.29 (14.67)
Gender
Male	17 (44.7%)
Female	21 (55.3%)
Education
No formal education/primary school (Primary)	2 (5.3%)
Junior/intermediate Cert. (Lower secondary)	7 (18.4%)
Leaving Certificate or equivalent (Upper secondary)	7 (18.4%)
Third-level qualification (Tertiary)	22 (57.9%)
Length of asthma diagnosis (years)	23.48 (16.39)
Asthma control score (mean)	2.1 (1.3)
Payment for healthcare
Payment with own money	12 (32.4%)
Health insurance	12 (32.4%)
GP visit card	3 (8.1%)
Medical card	20 (54.1%)
Presence of other chronic illness	14 (37.8%)

Table 4. MNL model of forced choice between two unlabeled service alternatives.

			95% Confidence Interval
	Co-efficient	Standard Error	LB	UB	Relative Importance
Having a written plan					0.213
No	−0.106 (omitted level)	0.098	−0.298	0.085
Yes	0.106	0.098	−0.085	0.298
Healthcare professional					0.927
A general practitioner	−0.337** (omitted level)	0.124	−0.581	−0.094
A respiratory nurse	−0.252*	0.119	−0.486	−0.019
A respiratory doctor/consultant	0.590**	0.123	0.349	0.830
Time to consultation					1.207
Two days later	−0.675** (omitted level)	0.139	−0.947	−0.402
Next day	0.142	0.126	−0.106	0.390
Same day	0.533**	0.127	0.283	0.782
Method of communication					0.669
Phone call	−0.335** (omitted level)	0.077	−0.485	−0.184
Face-to-face meeting	0.335**	0.077	0.184	0.485
Knowledge of patient’s health					1.036
No notes/previous contact	−0.573** (omitted level)	0.122	−0.812	−0.334
Notes but no previous contact	0.110	0.119	−0.123	0.342
Notes and previous contact	0.463**	0.152	0.166	0.761
Response to concerns					1.533
Appears not to fully listen	−0.767** (omitted level)	0.086	−0.936	−0.597
Appears to listen	0.767**	0.086	0.597	0.936
ASC service b	0.037	0.131	−0.220	0.294
AIC	479.397
BIC	520.622

**significant at p < 0.01 *significant at p < 0.05,. ASC = alternative specific constant. Values for the omitted level were calculated as the negative sum of the calculated levels and standard error was calculated as outlined in Hauber et al. (36). Relative importance calculated as difference between most preferred and least preferred level.

Hauber B, González JM, Groothuis-Oudshoorn C, Prior T, Marshall D, Cunningham C, IJzerman M, Bridges J. 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(4):300–315.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar