Preferences for Physical Examination Service in Community Health Service Center in China: A Discrete Choice Experiment

References

• You LL, Liu YL. National Essential Public Health Services Programs over the Past Decade Research Report One: significance and experiences of implementing National Essential Public Health Services Programs[J]. Chin General Practice. 2022;25(26):3203–3208.
   Google Scholar
• Du M, Li P, Tang L, et al. Cognition, attitude, practice toward health checkup and associated factors among urban residents in southwest China, Sichuan province, 2022: a community-based study. Z Gesundh Wiss. 2023;18:1–12.
   Google Scholar
• Zhang Y, Su D, Chen Y, et al. Effect of socioeconomic status on the physical and mental health of the elderly: the mediating effect of social participation. BMC Public Health. 2022;22(1):605. doi:10.1186/s12889-022-13062-7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shimizu H, Shimada N, Otahara Y, et al. Relationship between low evaluation by recipients under 40 years old of health interviews by occupational health nurses and deterioration in health checkup results over one year. Keio J Med. 2008;57(2):90–98. doi:10.2302/kjm.57.90
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Fang EF, Xie C, Schenkel JA, et al. A research agenda for ageing in China in the 21st century (2nd edition): focusing on basic and translational research, long-term care, policy and social networks. Ageing Res Rev. 2020;64:101174. doi:10.1016/j.arr.2020.101174
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen J, Wu Z, Liu Y, et al. Prevalence, Association Relation, and Dynamic Evolution Analysis of Critical Values in Health Checkup in China: a Retrospective Study. Front Public Health. 2021;9:630356. doi:10.3389/fpubh.2021.630356
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kyoto-Kameoka study group, Yamaguchi M, Yoshida T, Yamada Y, et al. Sociodemographic and physical predictors of non-participation in community based physical checkup among older neighbors: a case-control study from the Kyoto-Kameoka longitudinal study, Japan. BMC Public Health. 2018;18(1):568. doi:10.1186/s12889-018-5426-5
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Murphy SME, Hough DE, Sylvia ML, et al. Key Design Considerations When Calculating Cost Savings for Population Health Management Programs in an Observational Setting. Health Serv Res. 2018;53 Suppl 1(Suppl Suppl 1):3107–3124. doi:10.1111/1475-6773.12832
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Abraham M, Lim MJ, Tan WS, et al. Global Trends Towards Population Health Management and Key Lessons and Initiatives in the Singapore Context. Int J Integr Care. 2022;22(3):19. doi:10.5334/ijic.7016
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eades CE, Ferguson JS, O’Carroll RE. Public health in community pharmacy: a systematic review of pharmacist and consumer views. BMC Public Health. 2011;11(1):582. doi:10.1186/1471-2458-11-582
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hu Q, Hu H, Hu M, et al. Patient Preferences For Specialty Pharmacy Services: a Stated Preference Discrete-Choice Experiment in China. Front Public Health. 2020;8:597389. doi:10.3389/fpubh.2020.597389
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ryan M. Using conjoint analysis to take account of patient preferences and go beyond health outcomes: an application to in vitro fertilisation. Soc Sci Med. 1999;48(4):535–546. doi:10.1016/S0277-9536(98)00374-8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clark MD, Determann D, Petrou S, et al. Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature. Pharmacoeconomics. 2014;32(9):883–902. doi:10.1007/s40273-014-0170-x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Soekhai V, de Bekker-Grob EW, Ellis AR, et al. Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: past, Present and Future. Pharmacoeconomics. 2019;37(2):201–226. doi:10.1007/s40273-018-0734-2
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lieberz D, Borgeson H, Dobson S, et al. A Physical Therapy Mobility Checkup for Older Adults: feasibility and Participant Preferences From a Discrete Choice Experiment. J Patient Cent Res Rev. 2022;9(1):24–34. doi:10.17294/2330-0698.1874
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wagner AL, Zhang F, Ryan KA, et al. US Residents’ Preferences for Sharing of Electronic Health Record and Genetic Information: a Discrete Choice Experiment. Value Health. 2023;1:56.
   Google Scholar
• Katz DA, Stewart KR, Paez M, et al. Development of a discrete choice experiment (DCE) questionnaire to understand veterans’ preferences for tobacco treatment in primary care. Patient. 2018;11(6):649–663. doi:10.1007/s40271-018-0316-6
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Schildmann KE, Groeneveld IE, Denzel J, et al. Discovering the hidden benefits of cognitive interviewing in two languages: the first phase of a validation study of the integrated palliative care outcome scale. Palliat Med. 2015;30:599–610. doi:10.1177/0269216315608348
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cheraghi-Sohi S, Bower P, Mead N, et al. Making sense of patient priorities: applying discrete choice methods in primary care using ‘think aloud’ technique. Fam Pract. 2007;24(3):276–282. doi:10.1093/fampra/cmm007
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gomes B, de Brito M, Sarmento VP, et al. Valuing attributes of home palliative care with service users: a pilot discrete choice experiment. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2017;54(6):973–985. doi:10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2017.05.005
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kohler RE, Lee CN, Gopal S, et al. Developing a discrete choice experiment in Malawi: eliciting preferences for breast cancer early detection services. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2015;9:1459–1472. doi:10.2147/PPA.S87341
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tourangeau R, Rips LJ, Rasinski KA. The Psychology of Survey Response. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2000.
   Google Scholar
• Hole AR Mixed logit modelling in Stata - An overview. Available from: https://www.stata.com/meeting/uk13/abstracts/materials/uk13_hole.pdf. Accessed October 13, 2019.
   Google Scholar
• Hauber AB, González JM, Groothuis-Oudshoorn CGM, 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(4):300–315. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2016.04.004
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pacifico D, Yoo HI. lclogit: a Stata command for fitting latent-class conditional logit models via the expectation-maximization algorithm. Stata J. 2013;13(3):625–639. doi:10.1177/1536867X1301300312
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Veldwijk J, Marceta SM, Swait JD, et al. Taking the Shortcut: simplifying Heuristics in Discrete Choice Experiments. Patient. 2023;16(4):301–315. doi:10.1007/s40271-023-00625-y
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hoerger TJ, Howard LZ. Search behavior and choice of physician in the market for prenatal care. Med Care. 1995;33(4):332–349. doi:10.1097/00005650-199504000-00002
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu X, Chen M, Li J, et al. How to Manage Diversity and Enhance Team Performance: evidence from Online Doctor Teams in China. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019;17(1):48. doi:10.3390/ijerph17010048
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jiang MZ, Fu Q, Xiong JY, et al. Preferences heterogeneity of health care utilization of community residents in China: a stated preference discrete choice experiment. BMC Health Serv Res. 2020;20(1):430. doi:10.1186/s12913-020-05134-4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Manthiram K, Blood EA, Kuppuswamy V, et al. Predictors of optional immunization uptake in an urban south Indian population. Vaccine. 2014;32:3417–3423. doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2014.04.012
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhu J, Li J, Zhang Z, et al. Exploring determinants of health provider choice and heterogeneity in preference among outpatients in Beijing: a labelled discrete choice experiment. BMJ Open. 2019;9:e023363. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2018-023363
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhao YC, Zhao M, Song S. Online Health Information Seeking Behaviors Among Older Adults: systematic Scoping Review. J Med Internet Res. 2022;24(2):e34790. doi:10.2196/34790
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar