Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T13:02:06.707Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Investigating patients' preferences for cardiac rehabilitation in Denmark

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 March 2006

Trine Kjær ,
Dorte Gyrd-Hansen  and
Ingrid Willaing
Trine Kjær
Affiliation:
University of Southern Denmark
Dorte Gyrd-Hansen
Affiliation:
University of Southern Denmark
Ingrid Willaing
Affiliation:
Research Centre for Prevention and Health
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives: The objective of this study was to analyze preferences for activities comprised in comprehensive cardiac rehabilitation programs among former cardiac patients from three different hospitals in Copenhagen County, Denmark.

Methods: A discrete choice experiment was applied to elicit the preferences for the offer of participation in various cardiac rehabilitation program activities: smoking cessation course, physical exercise program, personal meetings with cardiac nurse, group meetings managed by cardiac nurses, and nutritional counseling guidance. The questionnaire was sent to 742 former cardiac patients. We had a response rate of 69 percent.

Results: We found that preferences differed with respect to gender and age and that the offer of participation in cardiac rehabilitation activities was not highly valued by older patients, in particular among older men.

Conclusions: The discrete choice experiment proved a valuable instrument for the measurement of preferences for cardiac rehabilitation. The study provides important information on patients' preferences for cardiac rehabilitation for healthcare professionals and decision makers.

Keywords

Patient satisfactionDecision support techniquesHeart diseasesRehabilitation
Type
GENERAL ESSAYS
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 22 , Issue 2 , April 2006 , pp. 211 - 218
Copyright
© 2006 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bateman IJ, Carson RT, Day B, et al. 2002. Economic evaluation with stated preference techniques, a manual. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited;
Bech M. 2003 Politicians' and hospital managers' trade-offs in the choice of reimbursement scheme: A discrete choice experiment. Health Policy. 66: 261– 275.Google Scholar
Beswick AD, Rees K, Griebsch I, et al. 2004 Provision, uptake and cost of cardiac rehabilitation programs: Improving services to under-represented groups. Health Technol Assess. 8: 1– 152.Google Scholar
Birch S, Donaldson C. 2003 Valuing the benefits and costs of health care programs: Where's the ‘extra’ in extra-welfarism? Soc Sci Med. 56: 1121– 1123.Google Scholar
Clark AM, Barbour RS, White M, MacIntyre PD. 2004 Promoting participation in cardiac rehabilitation: Patient choices and experiences. J Adv Nurs. 47: 5– 14.Google Scholar
Cooper AF, Jackson G, Weinman J, Horne R. 2005 A qualitative study investigating patients' beliefs about cardiac rehabilitation. Clin Rehabil. 19: 87– 96.Google Scholar
Filip J, McGillen C, Mosca L. 1999 Patient preferences for cardiac rehabilitation and desired program elements. J Cardiopum Rehabil. 19: 339– 343.Google Scholar
Gerard K, Lattimer V. 2005 Preferences of patients for emergency services available during usual GP surgery hours: A discrete choice experiment. Fam Pract. 22: 28– 36.Google Scholar
Greene WH. 2003. Econometric analysis. New Jersey: Person Education, Inc;
Gyrd-Hansen D, Slothuus U. 2002 The citizen's preferences for financing public health care: A Danish survey. Int J Health Care Finance Econ. 2: 25– 36.Google Scholar
Hanemann WM. 1984 Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete responses. Am J Agric Econ. 66: 332– 341.Google Scholar
Hedback B, Perk J, Hornblad M, Ohlsson U. 2001 Cardiac rehabilitation after coronary artery bypass surgery: 10-year results on mortality, morbidity and readmissions to hospital. J Cardiovasc Risk. 8: 153– 158.Google Scholar
Jackson L, Leclerc J, Erskine Y, Linden W. 2005 Getting the most out of cardiac rehabilitation: A review of referral and adherence predictors. Heart. 91: 10– 14.Google Scholar
Kuhfeld WF. 2003. Marketing research methods in SAS experimental design, choice, conjoint, and graphical techniques. Cary: SAS Institute Inc;
Lavorato L, Grypma S, Spenceley S, Hagen B, Nowatzki N. 2003 Positive outcomes in cardiac rehabilitation: The little program that could. Can J Cardiovasc Nurs. 13: 13– 19.Google Scholar
Lloyd-Williams F, Mair FS, Leitner M. 2002 Exercise training and heart failure: A systematic review of current evidence. Br J Gen Pract. 52: 47– 55.Google Scholar
Louviere J, Hensher DA, Swait J. 2000. Stated choice methods, analysis and application. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press;
Louviere JJ. Choice experiments: An overview of concepts and issues. In: Bennett Blamey R, eds. The choice modeling approach to environmental valuation. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited; 2001; 13– 36.
McFadden D. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. In: Zarembka P, ed. Frontiers of econometrics. London: Academic Press; 1974: 105– 142.
Moore SM, Kramer FM. 1996 Women's and men's preferences for cardiac rehabilitation program features. J Cardiopulm Rehabil. 16: 163– 168.Google Scholar
Oldridge NB, Furlong W, Feeny D, et al. Economic evaluation of cardiac rehabilitation soon after acute myocardial infarction. Am J Cardiol. 993; 72: 154– 161.
Oldridge NB. 1998; Comprehensive cardiac rehabilitation: Is it cost-effective? Eur Heart J. 19 (Suppl 0): 42– 50.Google Scholar
Plach SK. 2003 Women and cardiac rehabilitation after heart surgery: Patterns of referral and adherence. Rehabil Nurs. 27: 104– 109.Google Scholar
Rees K, Bennett P, West R, Davey SG, Ebrahim S. 2004; Psychological interventions for coronary heart disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. CD002902.Google Scholar
Ryan M, Gerard K. 2003 Using discrete choice experiments to value health care programs: Current practice and future research reflections. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2: 55– 64.Google Scholar
Sanderson BK, Phillips MM, Gerald L, DiLillo V, Bittner V. 2003 Factors associated with the failure of patients to complete cardiac rehabilitation for medical and nonmedical reasons. J Cardiopulm Rehabil. 23: 281– 289.Google Scholar
Sculpher M, Bryan S, Fry P, et al. 2004 Patients' preferences for the management of non-metastatic prostate cancer: Discrete choice experiment. BMJ. 328: 382.Google Scholar
Schwappach DL. 2003 Does it matter who you are or what you gain? An experimental study of preferences for resource allocation. Health Econ. 12: 255– 267.Google Scholar
Scott A, Watson MS, Ross S. 2003 Eliciting preferences of the community for out of hours care provided by general practitioners: A stated preference discrete choice experiment. Soc Sci Med. 56: 803– 814.Google Scholar
Stewart KJ, Badenhop D, Brubaker PH, et al. 2003 Cardiac Rehabilitation following percutaneous revascularization, heart transplant, heart valve surgery, and for chronic heart failure. Chest. 123: 2104– 2111.Google Scholar
Taylor RS, Brown A, Ebrahim S, et al. 2004 Exercise-based rehabilitation for patients with coronary heart disease: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Am J Med. 116: 682– 692.Google Scholar
Thurstone LL. 1927 A law of comparative judgment. Psychol Rev. 34: 273– 286.Google Scholar
Varian HR. 1992. Microeconomic analysis. New York: Norton;
Weston A, Fitzgerald P. 2004 Discrete choice experiment to derive willingness to pay for methyl aminolevulinate photodynamic therapy versus simple excision surgery in basal cell carcinoma. Pharmacoeconomics. 22: 1195– 208.Google Scholar
Willaing I, Andreassen AH, Jørgensen T, Rokkedal J. 2004 Comparison of three hospital-based rehabilitation programs for patients with acute coronary syndrome. Eur J Cardiovasc Prev Rehabil. 11: 258.Google Scholar
Yu CM, Lau CP, Chau J, et al. 2004 A short course of cardiac rehabilitation program is highly cost effective in improving long-term quality of life in patients with recent myocardial infarction or percutaneous coronary intervention. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 85: 1915– 1922.Google Scholar