Open Access
Preferences for a third‐trimester ultrasound scan in a low‐risk obstetric population: a discrete choice experiment
Author(s) -
Lynn Fiona A.,
Crealey Grainne E.,
Alderdice Fiona A.,
McElnay James C.
Publication year - 2015
Publication title -
health expectations
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.314
H-Index - 74
eISSN - 1369-7625
pISSN - 1369-6513
DOI - 10.1111/hex.12062
Subject(s) - medicine , pregnancy , population , mixed logit , preference , logistic regression , obstetrics , family medicine , demography , environmental health , economics , genetics , sociology , biology , microeconomics
Abstract Objective Establish maternal preferences for a third‐trimester ultrasound scan in a healthy, low‐risk pregnant population. Design Cross‐sectional study incorporating a discrete choice experiment. Setting A large, urban maternity hospital in N orthern I reland. Participants One hundred and forty‐six women in their second trimester of pregnancy. Methods A discrete choice experiment was designed to elicit preferences for four attributes of a third‐trimester ultrasound scan: health‐care professional conducting the scan, detection rate for abnormal foetal growth, provision of non‐medical information, cost. Additional data collected included age, marital status, socio‐economic status, obstetric history, pregnancy‐specific stress levels, perceived health and whether pregnancy was planned. Analysis was undertaken using a mixed logit model with interaction effects. Main outcome measures Women's preferences for, and trade‐offs between, the attributes of a hypothetical scan and indirect willingness‐to‐pay estimates. Results Women had significant positive preference for higher rate of detection, lower cost and provision of non‐medical information, with no significant value placed on scan operator. Interaction effects revealed subgroups that valued the scan most: women experiencing their first pregnancy, women reporting higher levels of stress, an adverse obstetric history and older women. Conclusions Women were able to trade on aspects of care and place relative importance on clinical, non‐clinical outcomes and processes of service delivery, thus highlighting the potential of using health utilities in the development of services from a clinical, economic and social perspective. Specifically, maternal preferences exhibited provide valuable information for designing a randomized trial of effectiveness and insight for clinical and policy decision makers to inform woman‐centred care.