The introduction of choice in public services, and in health services more specifically, is part of a wider movement to introduce consumerism in health care. We analyze how citizens perceive the availability of choice of primary care doctors in 22 European countries and the factors that influence their opinions using multilevel analyses and data from the European Social Survey (Round 2, 2004; 22 countries, N = 33,375). We distinguish between individual factors and structural or country-level factors. We find that perceptions of having enough choice are not influenced by the opportunity to freely choose primary care doctors, the density of doctors in a country, or the level of health expenditure. Instead, these perceptions are influenced by individual attributes, such as personal health circumstances, age, sex, location of residence (rural or urban), and level of satisfaction with the health system.
AnellA.RosénP.HjortsbergC. (1997). Choice and participation in the health services: A survey of preferences among Swedish residents. Health Policy, 40, 157-168.
2.
BaileyW.PhillipsD. R. (1990). Spatial patterns of use of health services in the Kingston Metropolitan Area, Jamaica. Social Science & Medicine, 30, 1-12.
3.
BakerJ. B.BazemoreA. W.JacobsonC. J. (2008). Rapid assessment of access to primary care in remote parts of the developing world. Field Methods, 20, 296-309.
4.
BillinghurstB.WhitfieldM. (1993). Why do patients change their general practitioner? A postal questionnaire study of patients in Avon. The British Journal of General Practice, 43, 336-338.
5.
BöckenJ.KunstmannW.ButzlaffM. (2002). Die Freie Arztwahl: Ein internationaler Vergleich [Free choice of doctors: An international comparison]. Gesuntheitswesen, 64, 267-271.
6.
BrabynL.BarnettR. (2004). Population need and geographical access to general practitioners in rural New Zealand. Journal of the New Zealand Medical Association, 117(1199), U996.
7.
BrownT. (2007). Coercion versus choice: Citizen evaluations of public service quality across methods of consumption. Public Administration Review, 67, 559-572.
8.
BuorD. (2002). Distance as a predominant factor in the utilisation of health services in the Kumasi metropolis, Ghana. GeoJournal, 56, 145-157.
9.
ButzlaffM.BöckenJ.KunstmannW. (2001). Die freie Arztwahl: Internationaler Vergleich und nationale Perspektive [Free choice of doctors: An international comparison and national perspective]. Deutsche Medizinische Wochenschrift, 126, 1150-1154.
10.
Chu-WeiningerM. Y.BalkrishnanR. (2006). Consumer satisfaction with primary care provider choice and associated trust. BMC Health Services Research, 6(1), 139-152.
11.
CoulterA.JenkinsonC. (2005). European patients’ views on the responsiveness of health systems and healthcare providers. The European Journal of Public Health, 15, 355-360.
12.
CurticeJ.HeathO. (2012), Does Choice Deliver? Public Satisfaction with the Health Service. Political Studies, 60, 484-503
13.
DixonA.RobertsonR.ApplebyJ.BurgeP.DevlinN.MageeH. (2010). Patient choice: How patients choose and how providers respond. London, England: The King’s Fund.
14.
DonaldsonC.LloydP.LuptonD. (1991). Primary health care consumerism amongst elderly Australians. Age and Ageing, 20, 280-286.
15.
DowdingK.JohnP. (2011). Voice and choice in health care in England: Understanding citizen responses to dissatisfaction. Public Administration, 89, 1403-1418.
16.
DowdingK.JohnP. (2012). Exits, voices and social investment: Citizens’ reaction to public services. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
17.
European Observatory on Health Care Systems. (2000). Health care systems in transition: Switzerland. Copenhagen, Denmark: WHO Regional Office for Europe on behalf of the European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies.
18.
FotakiM. (2007). Patient choice in healthcare in England and Sweden: From quasi-market and back to market? A comparative analysis of failure in unlearning. Public Administration, 85, 1059-1075.
19.
FotakiM.RolandM.BoydA.McDonaldR.ScheaffR.SmithL. (2008). What benefits will choice bring to patients? Literature review and assessment of implications. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy, 13, 178-184.
20.
FredrikssonM.BlomqvistP.WinbladU. (2013). The trade-off between choice and equity: Swedish policymakers’ arguments when introducing patient choice. Journal of European Social Policy, 23, 192-209.
21.
FredrikssonM.WinbladU. (2008). Consequences of a decentralized healthcare governance model: Measuring regional authority support for patient choice in Sweden. Social Science & Medicine, 67, 271-279.
22.
FülöpG.KopetschT.SchöpeP. (2011). Catchment areas of medical practices and the role played by geographical distance in the patient’s choice of doctor. The Annals of Regional Science, 46, 691-706.
23.
GabbottM.HoggG. (1993). Choice of GP: Fact or fiction. Journal of Management in Medicine, 7(1), 57-63.
24.
GandhiI.ParleJ.GreenfieldS.GouldS. (1997). A qualitative investigation into why patients change their GPs. Family Practice, 14, 49-57.
25.
GeslerW. M.MeadeM. S. (1988). Locational and population factors in health care-seeking behavior in Savannah, Georgia. Health Services Research, 23, 443-462.
26.
GjelsvikR. (2009). Factors influencing patient movements in primary care: A multilevel analysis (Notatserie i Helseøkonomi). Helseøkonomi Bergen: Notatserie i Helseøkonomi, No. 19
27.
GlasbyJ.LittlechildR. (2009). Direct payments and personal budgets: Putting personalisation into practice. London, England: Policy Press.
28.
GreenerI. (2009). Towards a history of choice in UK health policy. Sociology of Health & Illness, 31, 309-324.
29.
GreenerI.MannionR. (2009). Patient choice in the NHS: What is the effect of choice policies on patients and relationships in health economies?Public Money & Management, 29, 95-100.
30.
HalldorssonM. (2003). Health care systems in transition: Iceland. Copenhagen, Denmark: WHO Regional Office for Europe on behalf of the European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies.
31.
HarrisK. M. (2003). How do patients choose physicians? Evidence from a national survey of enrollees in employment-related health plans. Health Services Research, 38, 711-732.
32.
HirschmanA. O. (1970). Exit, voice, and loyalty: Response to decline in firms, organizations and states. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
33.
HoxJ. (2002). Multilevel analysis. London, England: Lawrence Erlbaum.
34.
JilkeS. (2015). Choice and equality: Are vulnerable citizens worse off after liberalization reforms. Public Administration, 93, 68-85.
35.
JohnsenJ. R. (2006). Health care systems in transition: Norway. Copenhagen, Denmark: WHO Regional Office for Europe on behalf of the European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies.
36.
KuhryB. (2004). Public sector performance: An international comparison of education, health care, law and order and public administration in 29 western countries. Den Haag, The Netherlands: Sociaal en Cultureel Planbureau.
37.
Le GrandJ. (2007). The other invisible hand: Delivering public services through choice and competition. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
38.
LuptonD.DonaldsonC.LloydP. (1991). Caveat emptor or blissful ignorance? Patients and the consumerist ethos. Social Science & Medicine, 33, 559-568.
39.
MageeH.DavisL. J.CoulterA. (2003). Public views on healthcare performance indicators and patient choice. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 96, 338-342.
40.
MarshallM. N.HiscockJ.SibbaldB. (2002). Attitudes to the public release of comparative information on the quality of general practice care: Qualitative study. British Medical Journal, 325(7375), 1278-1281.
41.
National Centre for Social Research. British social attitudes survey 1983–2009. Colchester, Essex: UK Data Archive [distributor].
42.
NeedhamC. (2009). Interpreting personalization in England’s National Health Service: A textual analysis. Critical Policy Studies, 3, 204-220.
43.
NewmanJ.VidlerE. (2006). Discriminating customers, responsible patients, empowered users: Consumerism and the modernisation of health care. Journal of Social Policy, 35, 193-209.
44.
RosénP.AnellA.HjortsbergC. (2001). Patient views on choice and participation in primary health care. Health Policy, 55, 121-128.
45.
RubinG.BateA.GeorgeA.ShackleyP.HallN. (2006). Preferences for access to the GP: A discrete choice experiment. The British Journal of General Practice, 56, 743-748.
46.
SimmonsR.PowellM.GreenerI. (Eds.). (2009). The consumer in public services: Choice, values and difference. Bristol, UK: Policy Press.
47.
ThomasK.NichollJ.ColemanP. (1995). Assessing the outcome of making it easier for patients to change general practitioner: Practice characteristics associated with patient movements. The British Journal of General Practice, 45, 581-586.
48.
ThomsonS.DixonA. (2006). Choices in health care: The European experience. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy, 11, 167-171.
49.
TummersL.JilkeS.Van de WalleS. (2013). Citizens in charge? Reviewing the background and value of introducing choice and competition in public services. In DwivediY. K.ShareefM. A.PandeyS. K.KumarV. (Eds.), Public administration reformation: Market demand from public organizations (pp. 24-42). London, England: Routledge.
50.
VealeB. M.McCallumJ.SaltmanD. C.LonerganJ.WadsworthY. J.DouglasR. M. (1995). Consumer use of multiple general practitioners: An Australian epidemiological study. Family Practice, 12, 303-308.
51.
WilmotS. (2007). A fair range of choice: Justifying maximum patient choice in the British National Health Service. Health Care Analysis, 15, 59-72.
52.
WistowG.BarnesM. (1993). User involvement in community care: Origins, purposes, and applications. Public Administration, 71, 279-299.
53.
WunY. T.LamT. P.LamK. F.GoldbergD.LiD. K. T.YipK. C. (2010). How do patients choose their doctors for primary care in a free market?Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 16, 1215-1220.
