Background: While patients' preferences in primary care have been examined in numerous conjoint analyses, there has been little systematic effort to synthesise the findings. This review aimed to identify, to organise and to assess the strength of evidence for the attributes and factors associated with preference heterogeneity in conjoint analyses for primary care outpatient visits.
Methods: We searched five bibliographic databases (PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, Econlit and Scopus) from inception until 15 December 2021, complemented by hand-searching. We included conjoint analyses for primary care outpatient visits. Two reviewers independently screened papers for inclusion and assessed the quality of all included studies using the checklist by ISPOR Task Force for Conjoint Analysis. We categorized the attributes of primary care based on Primary Care Monitoring System framework and factors based on Andersen's Behavioural Model of Health Services Use. We then assessed the strength of evidence and direction of preference for the attributes of primary care, and factors affecting preference heterogeneity based on study quality and consistency in findings.
Results: Of 35 included studies, most (82.4%) were performed in high-income countries. Each study examined 3-8 attributes, mainly identified through literature reviews (n = 25). Only six examined visits for chronic conditions, with the rest on acute or non-specific / other conditions. Process attributes were more commonly examined than structure or outcome attributes. The three most commonly examined attributes were waiting time for appointment, out-of-pocket costs and ability to choose the providers they see. We identified 24/58 attributes with strong or moderate evidence of association with primary care uptake (e.g., various waiting times, out-of-pocket costs) and 4/43 factors with strong evidence of affecting preference heterogeneity (e.g., age, gender).
Conclusions: We found 35 conjoint analyses examining 58 attributes of primary care and 43 factors that potentially affect the preference of these attributes. The attributes and factors, stratified into evidence levels based on study quality and consistency, can guide the design of research or policies to improve patients' uptake of primary care. We recommend future conjoint analyses to specify the types of visits and to define their attributes clearly, to facilitate consistent understanding among respondents and the design of interventions targeting them. Word Count: 346/350 words.
Trial Registration: On Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/m7ts9.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9463739 | PMC |
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12875-022-01822-8 | DOI Listing |
Background: Lumbar fusion is the most common surgical intervention for chronic or severe low back pain. However, lumbar disk replacement (LDR) may be appropriate for certain patients. The objective of this study was to describe the postoperative management costs associated with both lumbar fusion and LDR in the 2-year period after surgery.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFJMIR Res Protoc
January 2025
Centre of Excellence in Women and Child Health, Aga Khan University, Karachi, Pakistan.
Background: The neonatal mortality rate in Pakistan is the third highest in Asia, with 8.6 million preterm babies. These newborns require warmth, nutrition, and infection protection, typically provided by incubators.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFJ Med Internet Res
January 2025
Cancer Screening, American Cancer Society, Atlanta, GA, United States.
Background: The online nature of decision aids (DAs) and related e-tools supporting women's decision-making regarding breast cancer screening (BCS) through mammography may facilitate broader access, making them a valuable addition to BCS programs.
Objective: This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to evaluate the scientific evidence on the impacts of these e-tools and to provide a comprehensive assessment of the factors associated with their increased utility and efficacy.
Methods: We followed the 2020 PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines and conducted a search of MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Embase, CINAHL, and Web of Science databases from August 2010 to April 2023.
JMIR Hum Factors
January 2025
Department of Public Health Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Cheras Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Background: Evaluating digital health service delivery in primary health care requires a validated questionnaire to comprehensively assess users' ability to implement tasks customized to the program's needs.
Objective: This study aimed to develop, test the reliability of, and validate the Tele-Primary Care Oral Health Clinical Information System (TPC-OHCIS) questionnaire for evaluating the implementation of maternal and child digital health information systems.
Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted in 2 phases.
N Engl J Med
January 2025
From Médecins Sans Frontières (L.G., F.V.), Sorbonne Université, INSERM Unité 1135, Centre d'Immunologie et des Maladies Infectieuses (L.G.), Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Groupe Hospitalier Universitaire Sorbonne Université, Hôpital Pitié-Salpêtrière, Centre National de Référence des Mycobactéries et de la Résistance des Mycobactéries aux Antituberculeux (L.G.), and Epicentre (M.G., E. Baudin), Paris, and Translational Research on HIV and Endemic and Emerging Infectious Diseases, Montpellier Université de Montpellier, Montpellier, Institut de Recherche pour le Développement, Montpellier, INSERM, Montpellier (M.B.) - all in France; Interactive Development and Research, Singapore (U.K.); McGill University, Epidemiology, Biostatistics, and Occupational Health, Montreal (U.K.); UCSF Center for Tuberculosis (G.E.V., P.N., P.P.J.P.) and the Division of HIV, Infectious Diseases, and Global Medicine (G.E.V.), University of California at San Francisco, San Francisco; the National Scientific Center of Phthisiopulmonology (A.A., E. Berikova) and the Center of Phthisiopulmonology of Almaty Health Department (A.K.), Almaty, and the City Center of Phthisiopulmonology, Astana (Z.D.) - all in Kazakhstan; Médecins Sans Frontières (C.B., I.M.), the Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit at University College London (I.M.), and St. George's University of London Institute for Infection and Immunity (S.W.) - all in London; MedStar Health Research Institute, Washington, DC (M.C.); Médecins Sans Frontières, Mumbai (V. Chavan), the Indian Council of Medical Research Headquarters-New Delhi, New Delhi (S. Panda), and the Indian Council of Medical Research-National AIDS Research Institute, Pune (S. Patil) - all in India; the Centre for Infectious Disease Epidemiology and Research (V. Cox) and the Department of Medicine (H. McIlleron), University of Cape Town, and the Wellcome Centre for Infectious Diseases Research in Africa, Institute of Infectious Disease and Molecular Medicine (S.W.) - both in Cape Town, South Africa; the Institute of Tropical Medicine, Antwerp, Belgium (B. C. J.); Médecins Sans Frontières, Geneva (G.F., N.L.); Médecins Sans Frontières, Yerevan, Armenia (O.K.); the National Center for Tuberculosis and Lung Diseases, Tbilisi, Georgia (N.K.); Partners In Health (M.K.) and Jhpiego Lesotho (L.O.) - both in Maseru; Socios En Salud Sucursal Peru (L.L., S.M.-T., J.R., E.S.-G., D.E.V.-V.), Hospital Nacional Sergio E. Bernales, Centro de Investigacion en Enfermedades Neumologicas (E.S.-G.), Hospital Nacional Dos de Mayo (E.T.), Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos (E.T.), and Hospital Nacional Hipólito Unanue (D.E.V.-V.) - all in Lima; Global Health and Social Medicine, Harvard Medical School (L.L., K.J.S., M.L.R., C.D.M.), Partners In Health (L.L., K.J.S., M.L.R., C.D.M.), the Division of Global Health Equity, Brigham and Women's Hospital (K.J.S., M.L.R., C.D.M.), the Department of Biostatistics and Computational Biology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, (L.T.), and Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health (L.T.) - all in Boston; and the Indus Hospital and Health Network, Karachi, Pakistan (H. Mushtaque, N.S.).
Background: For decades, poor treatment options and low-quality evidence plagued care for patients with rifampin-resistant tuberculosis. The advent of new drugs to treat tuberculosis and enhanced funding now permit randomized, controlled trials of shortened-duration, all-oral treatments for rifampin-resistant tuberculosis.
Methods: We conducted a phase 3, multinational, open-label, randomized, controlled noninferiority trial to compare standard therapy for treatment of fluoroquinolone-susceptible, rifampin-resistant tuberculosis with five 9-month oral regimens that included various combinations of bedaquiline (B), delamanid (D), linezolid (L), levofloxacin (Lfx) or moxifloxacin (M), clofazimine (C), and pyrazinamide (Z).
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!