The type of scanner is a modality-dependent feature. For example, MRIs and CT scanners are differ in size and functions. In medical ultrasounds, patients are not required to enter a scanner to be tested for CAD. These intrinsic modality-dependent differences were therefore considered as important test-specific attributes. In a DCE on scanning modalities to diagnose focal liver lesions, the type of scanner used was studied and shown to influence patient preferences for diagnostic tests (Whitty et al., 2015).
In the current study, the scanner type attribute was composed of three levels: Complete body scanner, partial body scanner, and no scanner. These levels were described as: no scanner: patients lie down on a bed, and a gel and a small device …show more content…
In most studies assessing treatment risks or side effects as an attribute, results revealed it as being an important factor for patients (Hauber et al., 2013; Clark et al., 2014; Harrison et al., 2014; Harrison et al., 2015). As expected, patients generally prefer treatment options without side effects, but may be willing to trade-off side effects for less costly options (Dong et al., 2016). In a DCE on acute coronary syndrome patients, participants revealed preferring to reduce mortality risk above all else (Mühlbacher et al., 2015). This attribute has also been suggested to be important for treating physicians (Rodvanna, 2014). Nonetheless, risks and side effects, or treatment safety, have been ranked as types of process attributes, which are generally more important to patients (Harrison et al., …show more content…
2012; Douglas et al., 2016). However, a DCE that compared waiting time for liver scanning modalities showed that, although statistically significant, this attribute was particularly variable and influenced by participants’ personal characteristics (Whitty et al., 2015). Despite its center-dependent nature, the availability of imaging modalities was considered generally comparable in Canada, making the fragmentation of this DCE attribute in distinctive levels problematic (The Canadian Medical Imaging Inventory, 2016). The availability and wait time attribute also was not considered as important on its own in the preliminary qualitative interviews. Thus, this attribute was not added to the DCE
In the current study, the scanner type attribute was composed of three levels: Complete body scanner, partial body scanner, and no scanner. These levels were described as: no scanner: patients lie down on a bed, and a gel and a small device …show more content…
In most studies assessing treatment risks or side effects as an attribute, results revealed it as being an important factor for patients (Hauber et al., 2013; Clark et al., 2014; Harrison et al., 2014; Harrison et al., 2015). As expected, patients generally prefer treatment options without side effects, but may be willing to trade-off side effects for less costly options (Dong et al., 2016). In a DCE on acute coronary syndrome patients, participants revealed preferring to reduce mortality risk above all else (Mühlbacher et al., 2015). This attribute has also been suggested to be important for treating physicians (Rodvanna, 2014). Nonetheless, risks and side effects, or treatment safety, have been ranked as types of process attributes, which are generally more important to patients (Harrison et al., …show more content…
2012; Douglas et al., 2016). However, a DCE that compared waiting time for liver scanning modalities showed that, although statistically significant, this attribute was particularly variable and influenced by participants’ personal characteristics (Whitty et al., 2015). Despite its center-dependent nature, the availability of imaging modalities was considered generally comparable in Canada, making the fragmentation of this DCE attribute in distinctive levels problematic (The Canadian Medical Imaging Inventory, 2016). The availability and wait time attribute also was not considered as important on its own in the preliminary qualitative interviews. Thus, this attribute was not added to the DCE