Display options
Cite
Gong CL, Hay JW, Meeker D, et al. Prescriber preferences for behavioural economics interventions to improve treatment of acute respiratory infections: a discrete choice experiment. BMJ Open. 2016;6(9):e012739doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012739.
Gong, C. L., Hay, J. W., Meeker, D., & Doctor, J. N. (2016). Prescriber preferences for behavioural economics interventions to improve treatment of acute respiratory infections: a discrete choice experiment. BMJ open, 6(9), e012739. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012739
Gong, Cynthia L, et al. "Prescriber preferences for behavioural economics interventions to improve treatment of acute respiratory infections: a discrete choice experiment." BMJ open vol. 6,9 (2016): e012739. doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012739
Gong CL, Hay JW, Meeker D, Doctor JN. Prescriber preferences for behavioural economics interventions to improve treatment of acute respiratory infections: a discrete choice experiment. BMJ Open. 2016 Sep 22;6(9):e012739. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012739. PMID: 27660322; PMCID: PMC5051402.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

BMJ Open. 2016 Sep 22;6(9):e012739. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012739.

Prescriber preferences for behavioural economics interventions to improve treatment of acute respiratory infections: a discrete choice experiment.

BMJ open

Cynthia L Gong, Joel W Hay, Daniella Meeker, Jason N Doctor

Affiliations

  1. University of Southern California Leonard D. Schaeffer Center for Health Policy & Economics, Los Angeles, California, USA.
  2. University of Southern California Leonard D. Schaeffer Center for Health Policy & Economics, Los Angeles, California, USA University of Southern California Keck School of Medicine, Los Angeles, California, USA.

PMID: 27660322 PMCID: PMC5051402 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012739

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To elicit prescribers' preferences for behavioural economics interventions designed to reduce inappropriate antibiotic prescribing, and compare these to actual behaviour.

DESIGN: Discrete choice experiment (DCE).

SETTING: 47 primary care centres in Boston and Los Angeles.

PARTICIPANTS: 234 primary care providers, with an average 20 years of practice.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Results of a behavioural economic intervention trial were compared to prescribers' stated preferences for the same interventions relative to monetary and time rewards for improved prescribing outcomes. In the randomised controlled trial (RCT) component, the 3 computerised prescription order entry-triggered interventions studied included: Suggested Alternatives (SA), an alert that populated non-antibiotic treatment options if an inappropriate antibiotic was prescribed; Accountable Justifications (JA), which prompted the prescriber to enter a justification for an inappropriately prescribed antibiotic that would then be documented in the patient's chart; and Peer Comparison (PC), an email periodically sent to each prescriber comparing his/her antibiotic prescribing rate with those who had the lowest rates of inappropriate antibiotic prescribing. A DCE study component was administered to determine whether prescribers felt SA, JA, PC, pay-for-performance or additional clinic time would most effectively reduce their inappropriate antibiotic prescribing. Willingness-to-pay (WTP) was calculated for each intervention.

RESULTS: In the RCT, PC and JA were found to be the most effective interventions to reduce inappropriate antibiotic prescribing, whereas SA was not significantly different from controls. In the DCE however, regardless of treatment intervention received during the RCT, prescribers overwhelmingly preferred SA, followed by PC, then JA. WTP estimates indicated that each intervention would be significantly cheaper to implement than pay-for-performance incentives of $200/month.

CONCLUSIONS: Prescribing behaviour and stated preferences are not concordant, suggesting that relying on stated preferences alone to inform intervention design may eliminate effective interventions.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01454947; Results.

Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/

Keywords: antibiotic prescribing; conjoint analysis; discrete choice; revealed preference; stated preference

References

  1. Value Health. 2003 Jul-Aug;6(4):474-82 - PubMed
  2. Health Econ. 2009 Apr;18(4):389-401 - PubMed
  3. Lancet. 2016 Apr 23;387(10029):1743-52 - PubMed
  4. Med Care. 2000 Jun;38(6 Suppl 1):I129-41 - PubMed
  5. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2003 Mar-Apr;10(2):154-65 - PubMed
  6. Health Econ. 2012 Feb;21(2):145-72 - PubMed
  7. Pharmacoeconomics. 2008;26(8):661-77 - PubMed
  8. J Eval Clin Pract. 2009 Dec;15(6):970-5 - PubMed
  9. JAMA. 2007 Nov 28;298(20):2415-7 - PubMed
  10. Health Policy. 2007 Jan;80(1):179-93 - PubMed
  11. Am J Prev Med. 2005 Feb;28(2):234-40 - PubMed
  12. JAMA. 2009 Aug 19;302(7):758-66 - PubMed
  13. Health Econ. 2015 Aug;24(8):951-65 - PubMed
  14. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2003;2(1):55-64 - PubMed
  15. Arch Intern Med. 2001 May 28;161(10):1261-6 - PubMed
  16. Qual Saf Health Care. 2003 Jun;12(3):215-20 - PubMed
  17. Pharmacoeconomics. 2013 Apr;31(4):345-55 - PubMed
  18. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2014 Jan;69(1):234-40 - PubMed
  19. J Health Econ. 2001 May;20(3):329-47 - PubMed
  20. PLoS One. 2014 Nov 03;9(11):e111805 - PubMed
  21. JAMA. 2016 Feb 9;315(6):562-70 - PubMed
  22. Ann Intern Med. 2003 Apr 1;138(7):525-33 - PubMed
  23. Milbank Q. 2001;79(2):149-77, III - PubMed
  24. BMJ. 2005 Apr 2;330(7494):765 - PubMed
  25. Health Aff (Millwood). 2011 Dec;30(12):2310-7 - PubMed
  26. Patient. 2014;7(4):365-86 - PubMed
  27. Med Care. 2000 Jun;38(6 Suppl 1):I17-25 - PubMed
  28. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2015 Mar 12;15:19 - PubMed
  29. Pharmacoeconomics. 2014 Sep;32(9):883-902 - PubMed
  30. BMC Infect Dis. 2013 Jun 27;13:290 - PubMed

Publication Types

Grant support