Wide Social Participation in Prioritizing Patients on Waiting Lists for Joint Replacement: A Conjoint Analysis

Abstract

Objective. The aim was to develop a priority scoring system for patients on waiting lists for joint replacement based on a wide social participation, and to analyze the differences among participants. Methods. Conjoint analysis. Focus groups in combination with a nominal technique were employed to identify the priority criteria (N=36). A rank-ordered logit model was then applied for scoring estimations. Participants (N=860) represented: consultants, allied-health professionals, patients and their relatives, and the general population of Catalonia. Results. Clinical and social criteria were selected, and their relative importance (over 100 points) was: pain (33), difficulty in doing activities of daily living (21), disease severity (18), limitations on ability to work (10), having someone to look after the patient (9), being a caregiver (6), and recovery probability (4). Estimated criteria coefficients had the expected positive sign and all were statistically significant (P < 0.001). There were differences between groups; pain was rated higher by patients/relatives, and difficulty in doing activities was rated lower by patients/relatives and the general public. Most interaction terms for these criteria and groups were significant (P < 0.001). Consultants and allied-health professionals had the most similar prioritization pattern (r=0.97). Conclusion. Both clinical and social criteria are considered for prioritization of joint replacement surgery from a wide social perspective. The preference among professional and social groups varies and this might impact the result of patient prioritization. A wide social participation for obtaining adequate prioritizing systems for patients on waiting lists is desirable.

Keywords

priority setting elective surgery hip/knee replacement conjoint analysis preferences social participation. (Med Decis Making 2008;28:554—566)

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Frankel S , West R , eds. Rationing and rationality in the National Health Service. The persistence of waiting lists. Edinburgh (UK): The Macmillan Press Ltd; 1993.

Stevens AF , Gillam S. Needs assessment: from theory to practice. BMJ. 1998;316(7142):1448-52.

Browning CJ , Thomas SA Community values and preferences in transplantation organ allocation decisions . Soc Sci Med. 2001;52(6):853-61.

Ratcliffe J. Public preferences for the allocation of donor liver grafts for transplantation. Health Econ. 2000;9(2):137-48.

Hadorn DC , Holmes AC The New Zealand priority criteria project. Part 1: overview. BMJ. . 1997;314(7074):131-4.

Naylor CD , Williams JI Primary hip and knee replacement surgery: Ontario criteria for case selection and surgical priority. Qual Health Care. 1996 ;5(1):20-30.

Western Canada Waiting List Project (WCWLP). Making Sense of Waiting Lists in Canada. Final Report. Edmonton (Alberta, Canada): WCWLP; March 2001. Report 489 NA.

Lack A. , Edwards RT , Boland A. Weights for waits: lessons from Salisbury. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2000;5(2):83-8.

Noseworthy TW , McGurran JJ , Hadorn DC Waiting for scheduled services in Canada: development of priority-setting scoring systems. J Eval Clin Pract. 2003;9(1):23-31.

10.

Bellan L. , Mathen M. The Manitoba Cataract Waiting List Program. Can Med Assoc J. 2001;164(8):1177-80.

11.

Arnett G. , Hadorn DC Developing priority criteria for hip and knee replacement: results from the Western Canada Waiting List Project. Can J Surg. 2003;46(4):290-6.

12.

Harry LE , Nolan JF , Elender F. , Lewis JC Who gets priority? Waiting list assessment using a scoring system. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2000;82(6 Suppl):186-8.

13.

Edwards RT Points for pain: waiting list priority scoring systems. BMJ . 1999;318(7181):412-4.

14.

New B. The rationing agenda in the NHS. Rationing Agenda Group. BMJ. 1996;312(7046):1593-601.

15.

BMA's Health Policy and Economic Research Unit. Waiting List Priorisation Scoring Systems. A discussion paper. London (UK): Head Health Policy and Economic Research Unit ; 1998. Report 6.

16.

Bowling A. , Jacobson B. , Southgate L. Explorations in consultation of the public and health professionals on priority setting in an inner London health district. Soc Sci Med. 1993;37(7):851-7.

17.

Saigal S. , Stoskopf BL , Feeny D. , et al. Differences in preferences for neonatal outcomes among health care professionals, parents, and adolescents. JAMA. 1999;281(21):1991-7.

18.

Devereaux PJ , Anderson DR , Gardner MJ , et al. Differences between perspectives of physicians and patients on anticoagulation in patients with atrial fibrillation: observational study. BMJ. 2001;323(7323):1218-22.

19.

Danis M. , Gerrity MS , Southerland LI , Patrick DL A comparison of patient, family, and physician assessments of the value of medical intensive care. Crit Care Med. 1988 ;16(6):594-600.

20.

Ebell MH , Doukas DJ , Smith MA The do-not-resuscitate order: a comparison of physician and patient preferences and decision-making. Am J Med. 1991;91(3):255-60.

21.

Druley JA , Ditto PH , Moore KA , Danks JH , Townsend A. , Smucker WD Physicians' predictions of elderly outpatients' preferences for life-sustaining treatment. J Fam Pract. 1993;37(5):469-75.

22.

Ebell MH , Doukas DJ , Smith MA The do-not-resuscitate order: a comparison of physician and patient preferences and decision-making. Am J Med. 1991;91(3):255-60.

23.

Rodríguez-Míguez E. , Herrero C. , Pinto-Prades JL Using a point system in the management of waiting lists: the case of cataracts. Soc Sci Med. 2004;59(3):585-94.

24.

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):535-46.

25.

Ryan M. , Farrar S. Using conjoint analysis to elicit preferences for health care. BMJ. 2000;320:1530-3.

26.

Pinto JL , Rodríguez E. , Castells X. , Gracia X. , Sánchez FI El establecimiento de prioridades en la cirugía electiva. Madrid: Secretaría General Técnica. Ministerio de Sanidad y Consumo; 2000.

27.

Green PV , Srinivasan V. Conjoint analysis in consumer research: issues and outlook. J Consum Res. 1978;5:103-22.

28.

Luce RD , Tukey JW Simultaneous conjoint measurement: a new type of fundamental measurement. J Math Psychol. 1964;1:1-27.

29.

Kitzinger J. Qualitative research. Introducing focus groups . BMJ. 1995;311(7000):299-302.

30.

Jones J. , Hunter D. Consensus methods for medical and health services research. BMJ. 1995;311(7001):376-80.

31.

Box GE , Hunter WG , Hunter JS Statistics for experimenters, an introduction to design, data analysis and model building. New York: John Wiley & Sons Inc; 1978.

32.

Centres sanitaris. Departament de Salut, Generalitat de Catalunya, Barcelona. Available from: http://www.gencat.es/sanitat/portal/cat/recerca_centres.htm (accessed 21 September 2007).

33.

Decret 418/2000 del 5 de desembre pel qual es crea el registre de seguiment i gestió de pacients en llista d'espera per a procediments quirúrgics. Barcelona: Diari Oficinal de la Generalitat de Catalunya (DOGC); núm. 3305, de 15 de gener de 2001. p 601.

34.

Beggs S. , Cardell S. Assessing the potential demand for electric cars. J Econ. 1981;16:1-19.

35.

Ben-Akiva M. , Morikawa T. , Shiroishi F. Analysis of the reliability of preference ranking data. J Bus Res. 1992;24:149-64.

36.

Green WH LIMDEP Version 7.0-User's Manual. Revised ed. New York : Econometric Software, Inc.; 1998 .

37.

Neuberger J. , Adams D. , MacMaster P. , Maidment A. , Speed M. Assessing priorities for allocation of donor liver grafts: survey of public and clinicians. BMJ. 1998;317(7152):172-5.

38.

Edwards RT , Boland A. , Wilkinson C. , Cohen D. , Williams J. Clinical and lay preferences for the explicit prioritisation of elective waiting lists: survey evidence from Wales. Health Policy. 2003;63(3):229-37.

39.

Comas M. , Espallargues M. , Castells X. , Sampietro-Colom L. Evaluación de la edad como criterio implicito en un sistema explícito de priorización de pacientes en lista de espera para cirugía de cataratas y artroplastia de cadera y rodilla. Gac Sanit. 2005;18 (Supl 3):46.

40.

McLeod D. , Morgan S. , McKinlay E. , et al. Use of, and attitudes to, clinical priority assessment criteria in elective surgery in New Zealand. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2004;9(2):91-9.

41.

Comas M. , Espallargues M. , Allepuz A. , Castells X. , Sampietro-Colom L. Aceptación de un sistema de priorización de pacientes en lista de espera para cirugía de cataratas y artroplastia de cadera y rodilla por parte de los especialistas clínicos. Gac Sanit. 2004; 18(Suppl 3):129.

42.

Dolan P. Output measures and valuation in health. In: Drummond M , McGuire A , editors. Economic evaluation in health care: Merging theory to practice. New York: Oxford University Press; 2001. p 46-67.

43.

Brown GC , Brown MM , Sharma S. Difference between ophthalmologists' and patients' perceptions of quality of life associated with age-related macular degeneration. Can J Ophthalmol. 2000;35(3):127-33.

44.

Lieberman JR , Dorey F. , Shekelle P. , et al. Differences between patients' and physicians evaluation of outcome after total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1996;78:835-8.

45.

Stein JD , Brown MM , Brown GC , Hollands H. , Sharma S. Quality of life with macular degeneration: perceptions of patients, clinicians, and community members. Br J Ophthalmol. 2003 ; 87(1):8-12.

46.

Lieberman JR , Dorey F. , Shekelle P. , et al. Differences between patients' and physicians' evaluations of outcome after total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1996;78(6):835-8.

47.

Harris WH , Sledge CB Total hip and total knee replacement. N Engl J Med. 1990;323:725-31.

48.

Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD). Total hip replacement [monograph on the Internet]. Effective Health Care. Vol. 2, issue 7. York (UK): NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination; Oct 1996. Available from: http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/pdf/ehc27.pdf (accessed 18 February 2008).

49.

Lloyd AJ

Threats to the estimation of benefit: are preference elicitation methods accurate?

Health Econ. 2003;12(5):393-402. 50. Richardson R. , Waddington C. Allocating resources: community involvement is not easy. Int J Health Plann Manag. 1996;11 (4):307-15.

50.

Dicker A. , Armstrong D. Patients' views of priority setting in health care: an interview survey in one practice. BMJ. 1995;311 (7013):1137-9.

51.

Dolan P. , Cookson R. , Ferguson B. Effect of discussion and deliberation on the public's views of priority setting in health care: focus group study. BMJ. 1999 ;318(7188):916-9.

52.

Sampietro-Colom L. , Espallargues E. , Reina MD , Estrada MD Opiniones, vivencias y percepciones de los ciudadanos entorno a las listas de espera para cirugía electiva de catarata y artroplastia de cadera y rodilla. Aten Primaria. 2004;33(2):86-94.