JAMA facial plastic surgery · 2018
Association Between Patient Value Systems and Physician and Practice Attributes Available Online.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Welshhans Jamie L, Harmon Jeffrey J, Papel Ira, Gentile Richard, Mangat Devinder, Byrne Patrick, Collar Ryan M
Аннотация
IMPORTANCE: The relative value of facial plastic surgeon personal and practice attributes is relevant to the broader health care system because of increasing out-of-pocket expenses to patients.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the relative value of specific facial plastic surgeon personal and practice attributes available online from the perspective of patients.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This study consisted of an electronic survey sent to patients by email using choice-based conjoint analysis; surveys were sent between December 2015 and March 2016. Participants had agreed to join email registries to be sent email surveys and promotions at 3 private facial plastic and reconstructive surgery practices. The following surgeon personal and practice attributes and levels were compared: (1) outcome transparency (above average, average, not available); (2) surgical training affiliations (US News and World Reports rankings); (3) online rating site scores (2 [poor], 3, or 4 [excellent] stars); and (4) price ($1×, $2×, and $3× [× = $1500; average cost was set at $2×]).
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The relative importance of outcome transparency, surgical training affiliations, online rating scores, and price to prospective patients.
RESULTS: Overall, 291 patients participated for a completion rate of 68%. Outcome transparency was the most valued attribute (attribute utility range = 141; attribute importance = 35.2%). Price was the least valued attribute (attribute utility range = 58.59; attribute importance = 15.1%). Assuming top-tier affiliations and 4-star ratings, share of market (SOM) was 75.5% for surgeons with above-average outcome transparency priced at $3× compared with those surgeons with no outcomes available priced at $1×. Holding price constant at $2×, surgeons with middle-tier affiliations and 2-star online ratings but above average outcomes achieved 48.4% SOM when compared with those surgeons with top-tier affiliations and 4-star online ratings without available outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Facial plastic surgery patients most value surgeons who publish outcomes. Moreover, they are willing to discount poor rating scores and lower-ranked institutional affiliations when outcome transparency is high. This study demonstrates that outcome transparency is crucial in facial plastic surgery markets.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: NA.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the relative value of specific facial plastic surgeon personal and practice attributes available online from the perspective of patients.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This study consisted of an electronic survey sent to patients by email using choice-based conjoint analysis; surveys were sent between December 2015 and March 2016. Participants had agreed to join email registries to be sent email surveys and promotions at 3 private facial plastic and reconstructive surgery practices. The following surgeon personal and practice attributes and levels were compared: (1) outcome transparency (above average, average, not available); (2) surgical training affiliations (US News and World Reports rankings); (3) online rating site scores (2 [poor], 3, or 4 [excellent] stars); and (4) price ($1×, $2×, and $3× [× = $1500; average cost was set at $2×]).
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The relative importance of outcome transparency, surgical training affiliations, online rating scores, and price to prospective patients.
RESULTS: Overall, 291 patients participated for a completion rate of 68%. Outcome transparency was the most valued attribute (attribute utility range = 141; attribute importance = 35.2%). Price was the least valued attribute (attribute utility range = 58.59; attribute importance = 15.1%). Assuming top-tier affiliations and 4-star ratings, share of market (SOM) was 75.5% for surgeons with above-average outcome transparency priced at $3× compared with those surgeons with no outcomes available priced at $1×. Holding price constant at $2×, surgeons with middle-tier affiliations and 2-star online ratings but above average outcomes achieved 48.4% SOM when compared with those surgeons with top-tier affiliations and 4-star online ratings without available outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Facial plastic surgery patients most value surgeons who publish outcomes. Moreover, they are willing to discount poor rating scores and lower-ranked institutional affiliations when outcome transparency is high. This study demonstrates that outcome transparency is crucial in facial plastic surgery markets.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: NA.