Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31667632›Full record

ArticleHealth economics review2019

Attribute development and level selection for a discrete choice experiment to elicit the preferences of health care providers for capitation payment mechanism in Kenya.

Melvin Obadha, Edwine Barasa, Jacob Kazungu, Gilbert Abotisem Abiiro, Jane Chuma

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health economics review, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

22 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Ethical Considerations for Discrete Choice Experiments with Caregivers.Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE · 2022
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Melvin ObadhaHealth Economics Research Unit, KEMRI | Wellcome Trust Research Programme, P.O. Box 43640 - 00100, Nairobi, Kenya. MObadha@kemri-wellcome.org.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1632-2410
Edwine BarasaHealth Economics Research Unit, KEMRI | Wellcome Trust Research Programme, P.O. Box 43640 - 00100, Nairobi, Kenya.
Jacob KazunguHealth Economics Research Unit, KEMRI | Wellcome Trust Research Programme, P.O. Box 43640 - 00100, Nairobi, Kenya.
Gilbert Abotisem AbiiroDepartment of Planning, Faculty of Planning and Land Management, University for Development Studies, Wa, Ghana.
Jane ChumaHealth Economics Research Unit, KEMRI | Wellcome Trust Research Programme, P.O. Box 43640 - 00100, Nairobi, Kenya.

Funding

Wellcome Trust core grant 092654Wellcome Trust Intermediate Fellowship 101082Wellcome Trust Training Fellowship 107527
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundStated preference elicitation methods such as discrete choice experiments (DCEs) are now widely used in the health domain. However, the "quality" of health-related DCEs has come under criticism due to the lack of rigour in conducting and reporting some aspects of the design process such as attribute and level development. Superficially selecting attributes and levels and vaguely reporting the process might result in misspecification of attributes which may, in turn, bias the study and misinform policy. To address these concerns, we meticulously conducted and report our systematic attribute development and level selection process for a DCE to elicit the preferences of health care providers for the attributes of a capitation payment mechanism in Kenya. METHODOLOGY: We used a four-stage process proposed by Helter and Boehler to conduct and report the attribute development and level selection process. The process entailed raw data collection, data reduction, removing inappropriate attributes, and wording of attributes. Raw data was collected through a literature review and a qualitative study. Data was reduced to a long list of attributes which were then screened for appropriateness by a panel of experts. The resulting attributes and levels were worded and pretested in a pilot study. Revisions were made and a final list of attributes and levels decided.

resultsThe literature review unearthed seven attributes of provider payment mechanisms while the qualitative study uncovered 10 capitation attributes. Then, inappropriate attributes were removed using criteria such as salience, correlation, plausibility, and capability of being traded. The resulting five attributes were worded appropriately and pretested in a pilot study with 31 respondents. The pilot study results were used to make revisions. Finally, four attributes were established for the DCE, namely, payment schedule, timeliness of payments, capitation rate per individual per year, and services to be paid by the capitation rate.

conclusionBy rigorously conducting and reporting the process of attribute development and level selection of our DCE,we improved transparency and helped researchers judge the quality.

Indexed as

Attribute developmentCapitationDiscrete choice experimentKenyaProvider payment mechanismsSub-Saharan Africa

Identifiers

PMID31667632
PMCPMC6822414

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.