↓ Skip to main content

What do women want? Valuing women’s preferences and estimating demand for alternative models of maternity care using a discrete choice experiment

Overview of attention for article published in Health Policy, September 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (88th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
25 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
91 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
What do women want? Valuing women’s preferences and estimating demand for alternative models of maternity care using a discrete choice experiment
Published in
Health Policy, September 2017
DOI 10.1016/j.healthpol.2017.09.013
Pubmed ID
Authors

Christopher G. Fawsitt, Jane Bourke, Richard A. Greene, Brendan McElroy, Nicolas Krucien, Rosemary Murphy, Jennifer E. Lutomski

Abstract

In many countries, there has been a considerable shift towards providing a more woman-centred maternity service, which affords greater consumer choice. Maternity service provision in Ireland is set to follow this trend with policymakers committed to improving maternal choice at hospital level. However, women's preferences for maternity care are unknown, as is the expected demand for new services. In this paper, we used a discrete choice experiment (DCE) to (1) investigate women's strengths of preference for different features of maternity care; (2) predict market uptake for consultant- and midwifery-led care, and a hybrid model of care called the Domiciliary In and Out of Hospital Care scheme; and (3) calculate the welfare change arising from the provision of these services. Women attending antenatal care across two teaching hospitals in Ireland were invited to participate in the study. Women's preferred model of care resembled the hybrid model of care, with considerably more women expected to utilise this service than either consultant- or midwifery-led care. The benefit of providing all three services proved considerably greater than the benefit of providing two or fewer services. From a priority setting perspective, pursuing all three models of care would generate a considerable welfare gain, although the cost-effectiveness of such an approach needs to be considered.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 25 X users 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 91 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 91 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 15 16%
Researcher 8 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 9%
Student > Bachelor 8 9%
Lecturer 5 5%
Other 16 18%
Unknown 31 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 21 23%
Medicine and Dentistry 9 10%
Social Sciences 5 5%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 4 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 3%
Other 14 15%
Unknown 35 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. 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 16 May 2019.
All research outputs
#2,071,273
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Health Policy
#270
of 2,828 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#39,250
of 327,461 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Policy
#2
of 48 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,828 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its peers.
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 327,461 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 48 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.