↓ Skip to main content

User Fees in General Practice: Willingness to Pay and Potential Substitution Patterns—Results from a Danish GP Patient Survey

Overview of attention for article published in Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
32 Mendeley
Title
User Fees in General Practice: Willingness to Pay and Potential Substitution Patterns—Results from a Danish GP Patient Survey
Published in
Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, March 2017
DOI 10.1007/s40258-017-0325-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Christian Kronborg, Line Bjørnskov Pedersen, Anders Fournaise, Christel Nøhr Kronborg

Abstract

Increases in public expenditures to general practitioner (GP) services and specialist care have spurred debate over whether to implement user fees for healthcare services such as GP consultations in Denmark. The objective of this study was to examine Danish patients' attitudes towards user fees and their willingness to pay (WTP) for a consultation, and to investigate how user charges may impact patients' behaviour. A questionnaire survey was conducted in a GP clinic. A total of 343 individual persons answered the questionnaire. One hundred and seventy (50%) persons were not willing to pay for a consultation. Among patients reporting positive WTP values, the mean WTP was 137 (standard deviation 140) Danish kroner (DKK). Patients who were 65 years old or older were more likely to be willing to pay for a GP consultation than patients under the age of 65 years. Furthermore, patients with a personal annual income of more than 200,000 DKK were more likely to be willing to pay for a consultation than other income groups. With respect to patients with a positive WTP value, their own assessment of the seriousness of the consultation and their self-assessed health influenced the amount they would be willing to pay. Finally, we observed a stated willingness to substitute GP consultations with alternatives that are free of charge. About half of the patients with an appointment for a GP consultation are willing to pay for the consultation. User charges may potentially influence the patients' behaviour. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01784731.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 32 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 32 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 22%
Researcher 4 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 9%
Student > Bachelor 2 6%
Lecturer 2 6%
Other 5 16%
Unknown 9 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 7 22%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 19%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 9%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 9%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 6%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 10 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 31 March 2017.
All research outputs
#18,540,642
of 22,962,258 outputs
Outputs from Applied Health Economics and Health Policy
#615
of 784 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#235,341
of 309,402 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Applied Health Economics and Health Policy
#10
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,962,258 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 784 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.0. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 309,402 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.