Objective. The aim was to develop a priority scoring system for patients on waiting lists for joint replacement based on a wide social participation, and to analyze the differences among participants.Methods.Conjoint analysis. Focus groups in combination with a nominal technique were employed to identify the priority criteria (N=36). A rank-ordered logit model was then applied for scoring estimations. Participants (N=860) represented: consultants, allied-health professionals, patients and their relatives, and the general population of Catalonia.Results.Clinical and social criteria were selected, and their relative importance (over 100 points) was: pain (33), difficulty in doing activities of daily living (21), disease severity (18), limitations on ability to work (10), having someone to look after the patient (9), being a caregiver (6), and recovery probability (4). Estimated criteria coefficients had the expected positive sign and all were statistically significant (P < 0.001). There were differences between groups; pain was rated higher by patients/relatives, and difficulty in doing activities was rated lower by patients/relatives and the general public. Most interaction terms for these criteria and groups were significant (P < 0.001). Consultants and allied-health professionals had the most similar prioritization pattern (r=0.97).Conclusion.Both clinical and social criteria are considered for prioritization of joint replacement surgery from a wide social perspective. The preference among professional and social groups varies and this might impact the result of patient prioritization. A wide social participation for obtaining adequate prioritizing systems for patients on waiting lists is desirable.
Frankel S, West R, eds. Rationing and rationality in the National Health Service. The persistence of waiting lists. Edinburgh (UK): The Macmillan Press Ltd;1993.
2.
Stevens AF, Gillam S.Needs assessment: from theory to practice. BMJ. 1998;316(7142):1448-52.
3.
Browning CJ, Thomas SACommunity values and preferences in transplantation organ allocation decisions . Soc Sci Med. 2001;52(6):853-61.
4.
Ratcliffe J.Public preferences for the allocation of donor liver grafts for transplantation. Health Econ. 2000;9(2):137-48.
5.
Hadorn DC, Holmes ACThe New Zealand priority criteria project. Part 1: overview. BMJ. . 1997;314(7074):131-4.
6.
Naylor CD, Williams JIPrimary hip and knee replacement surgery: Ontario criteria for case selection and surgical priority. Qual Health Care. 1996 ;5(1):20-30.
7.
Western Canada Waiting List Project (WCWLP).Making Sense of Waiting Lists in Canada. Final Report. Edmonton (Alberta, Canada): WCWLP; March 2001. Report 489 NA.
8.
Lack A., Edwards RT, Boland A.Weights for waits: lessons from Salisbury. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2000;5(2):83-8.
9.
Noseworthy TW , McGurran JJ, Hadorn DCWaiting for scheduled services in Canada: development of priority-setting scoring systems. J Eval Clin Pract. 2003;9(1):23-31.
10.
Bellan L., Mathen M.The Manitoba Cataract Waiting List Program. Can Med Assoc J. 2001;164(8):1177-80.
11.
Arnett G., Hadorn DCDeveloping priority criteria for hip and knee replacement: results from the Western Canada Waiting List Project. Can J Surg. 2003;46(4):290-6.
12.
Harry LE, Nolan JF, Elender F., Lewis JCWho gets priority? Waiting list assessment using a scoring system. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2000;82(6 Suppl):186-8.
13.
Edwards RTPoints for pain: waiting list priority scoring systems. BMJ . 1999;318(7181):412-4.
14.
New B.The rationing agenda in the NHS. Rationing Agenda Group. BMJ. 1996;312(7046):1593-601.
15.
BMA's Health Policy and Economic Research Unit.Waiting List Priorisation Scoring Systems. A discussion paper. London (UK): Head Health Policy and Economic Research Unit ; 1998. Report 6.
16.
Bowling A., Jacobson B., Southgate L.Explorations in consultation of the public and health professionals on priority setting in an inner London health district. Soc Sci Med. 1993;37(7):851-7.
17.
Saigal S., Stoskopf BL, Feeny D., et al. Differences in preferences for neonatal outcomes among health care professionals, parents, and adolescents. JAMA. 1999;281(21):1991-7.
18.
Devereaux PJ , Anderson DR, Gardner MJ, et al. Differences between perspectives of physicians and patients on anticoagulation in patients with atrial fibrillation: observational study. BMJ. 2001;323(7323):1218-22.
19.
Danis M., Gerrity MS, Southerland LI, Patrick DLA comparison of patient, family, and physician assessments of the value of medical intensive care. Crit Care Med. 1988 ;16(6):594-600.
20.
Ebell MH, Doukas DJ, Smith MAThe do-not-resuscitate order: a comparison of physician and patient preferences and decision-making. Am J Med. 1991;91(3):255-60.
21.
Druley JA, Ditto PH, Moore KA, Danks JH, Townsend A., Smucker WDPhysicians' predictions of elderly outpatients' preferences for life-sustaining treatment. J Fam Pract. 1993;37(5):469-75.
22.
Ebell MH, Doukas DJ, Smith MAThe do-not-resuscitate order: a comparison of physician and patient preferences and decision-making. Am J Med. 1991;91(3):255-60.
23.
Rodríguez-Míguez E., Herrero C., Pinto-Prades JLUsing a point system in the management of waiting lists: the case of cataracts. Soc Sci Med. 2004;59(3):585-94.
24.
Ryan M.Using conjoint analysis to take account of patient preferences and go beyond health outcomes: an application to in vitro fertilisation. Soc Sci Med. 1999;48(4):535-46.
25.
Ryan M., Farrar S.Using conjoint analysis to elicit preferences for health care. BMJ. 2000;320:1530-3.
26.
Pinto JL, Rodríguez E., Castells X., Gracia X., Sánchez FIEl establecimiento de prioridades en la cirugía electiva. Madrid: Secretaría General Técnica. Ministerio de Sanidad y Consumo; 2000.
27.
Green PV, Srinivasan V.Conjoint analysis in consumer research: issues and outlook. J Consum Res. 1978;5:103-22.
28.
Luce RD, Tukey JWSimultaneous conjoint measurement: a new type of fundamental measurement. J Math Psychol. 1964;1:1-27.
29.
Kitzinger J.Qualitative research. Introducing focus groups . BMJ. 1995;311(7000):299-302.
30.
Jones J., Hunter D.Consensus methods for medical and health services research. BMJ. 1995;311(7001):376-80.
31.
Box GE, Hunter WG, Hunter JSStatistics for experimenters, an introduction to design, data analysis and model building. New York: John Wiley & Sons Inc; 1978.
32.
Centres sanitaris. Departament de Salut, Generalitat de Catalunya, Barcelona. Available from: http://www.gencat.es/sanitat/portal/cat/recerca_centres.htm (accessed 21 September 2007).
33.
Decret 418/2000 del 5 de desembre pel qual es crea el registre de seguiment i gestió de pacients en llista d'espera per a procediments quirúrgics. Barcelona: Diari Oficinal de la Generalitat de Catalunya (DOGC); núm. 3305, de 15 de gener de 2001. p 601.
34.
Beggs S., Cardell S.Assessing the potential demand for electric cars. J Econ. 1981;16:1-19.
35.
Ben-Akiva M. , Morikawa T., Shiroishi F.Analysis of the reliability of preference ranking data. J Bus Res. 1992;24:149-64.
36.
Green WHLIMDEP Version 7.0-User's Manual. Revised ed. New York : Econometric Software, Inc.; 1998 .
37.
Neuberger J. , Adams D., MacMaster P., Maidment A., Speed M.Assessing priorities for allocation of donor liver grafts: survey of public and clinicians. BMJ. 1998;317(7152):172-5.
38.
Edwards RT, Boland A., Wilkinson C., Cohen D., Williams J.Clinical and lay preferences for the explicit prioritisation of elective waiting lists: survey evidence from Wales. Health Policy. 2003;63(3):229-37.
39.
Comas M., Espallargues M., Castells X., Sampietro-Colom L.Evaluación de la edad como criterio implicito en un sistema explícito de priorización de pacientes en lista de espera para cirugía de cataratas y artroplastia de cadera y rodilla. Gac Sanit.2005;18 (Supl 3):46.
40.
McLeod D., Morgan S., McKinlay E., et al. Use of, and attitudes to, clinical priority assessment criteria in elective surgery in New Zealand. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2004;9(2):91-9.
41.
Comas M., Espallargues M., Allepuz A., Castells X., Sampietro-Colom L.Aceptación de un sistema de priorización de pacientes en lista de espera para cirugía de cataratas y artroplastia de cadera y rodilla por parte de los especialistas clínicos. Gac Sanit.2004; 18(Suppl 3):129.
42.
Dolan P.Output measures and valuation in health. In: Drummond M, McGuire A, editors. Economic evaluation in health care: Merging theory to practice. New York: Oxford University Press; 2001. p 46-67.
43.
Brown GC, Brown MM, Sharma S.Difference between ophthalmologists' and patients' perceptions of quality of life associated with age-related macular degeneration. Can J Ophthalmol. 2000;35(3):127-33.
44.
Lieberman JR , Dorey F., Shekelle P., et al. Differences between patients' and physicians evaluation of outcome after total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1996;78:835-8.
45.
Stein JD, Brown MM, Brown GC, Hollands H., Sharma S.Quality of life with macular degeneration: perceptions of patients, clinicians, and community members. Br J Ophthalmol. 2003 ; 87(1):8-12.
46.
Lieberman JR , Dorey F., Shekelle P., et al. Differences between patients' and physicians' evaluations of outcome after total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1996;78(6):835-8.
47.
Harris WH, Sledge CBTotal hip and total knee replacement. N Engl J Med. 1990;323:725-31.
48.
Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD).Total hip replacement [monograph on the Internet]. Effective Health Care. Vol. 2, issue 7. York (UK): NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination; Oct 1996. Available from: http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/pdf/ehc27.pdf (accessed 18 February 2008).
49.
Lloyd AJThreats to the estimation of benefit: are preference elicitation methods accurate?Health Econ. 2003;12(5):393-402. 50. Richardson R., Waddington C.Allocating resources: community involvement is not easy. Int J Health Plann Manag. 1996;11 (4):307-15.
50.
Dicker A., Armstrong D.Patients' views of priority setting in health care: an interview survey in one practice. BMJ. 1995;311 (7013):1137-9.
51.
Dolan P., Cookson R., Ferguson B.Effect of discussion and deliberation on the public's views of priority setting in health care: focus group study. BMJ. 1999 ;318(7188):916-9.
52.
Sampietro-Colom L., Espallargues E., Reina MD, Estrada MDOpiniones, vivencias y percepciones de los ciudadanos entorno a las listas de espera para cirugía electiva de catarata y artroplastia de cadera y rodilla. Aten Primaria. 2004;33(2):86-94.
