↓ Skip to main content

The Australian public's preferences for emergency care alternatives and the influence of the presenting context: a discrete choice experiment

Overview of attention for article published in BMJ Open, April 2015
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 (90th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
twitter
3 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
102 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
The Australian public's preferences for emergency care alternatives and the influence of the presenting context: a discrete choice experiment
Published in
BMJ Open, April 2015
DOI 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-006820
Pubmed ID
Authors

Paul Harris, Jennifer A Whitty, Elizabeth Kendall, Julie Ratcliffe, Andrew Wilson, Peter Littlejohns, Paul A Scuffham

Abstract

The current study seeks to quantify the Australian public's preferences for emergency care alternatives and determine if preferences differ depending on presenting circumstances. Increasing presentations to emergency departments have led to overcrowding, long waiting times and suboptimal health system performance. Accordingly, new service models involving the provision of care in alternative settings and delivered by other practitioners continue to be developed. A stratified sample of Australian adults (n=1838), 1382 from Queensland and 456 from South Australia, completed the survey. This included 951 females and 887 males from the 2045 people who met the screening criteria out of the 4354 people who accepted the survey invitation. A discrete choice experiment was used to elicit preferences in the context of one of four hypothetical scenarios: a possible concussion, a rash/asthma-related problem involving oneself or one's child and an anxiety-related presentation. Mixed logit regression was used to analyse the dependent variable choice and identify the relative importance of care attributes and the propensity to access care in each context. Results indicated a preference for treatment by an emergency physician in hospital for possible concussion and treatment by a doctor in ambulatory settings for rash/asthma-related and anxiety-related problems. Participants were consistently willing to wait longer before making trade-offs in the context of the rash/asthma-related scenario compared with when the same problem affected their child. Results suggest a clear preference for lower costs, shorter wait times and strong emphasis on quality care; however, significant preference heterogeneity was observed. This study has increased awareness that the public's emergency care choices will differ depending on the presenting context. It has further demonstrated the importance of service quality as a determinant of healthcare choices. The findings have also provided insights into the Australian public's reactions to emergency care reforms.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 102 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 101 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 17 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 17%
Researcher 12 12%
Professor 7 7%
Student > Bachelor 7 7%
Other 19 19%
Unknown 23 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 26 25%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 8%
Social Sciences 5 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 4%
Other 24 24%
Unknown 30 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. 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 26 July 2019.
All research outputs
#1,943,510
of 23,351,247 outputs
Outputs from BMJ Open
#3,907
of 23,143 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#26,522
of 265,309 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMJ Open
#59
of 299 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,351,247 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 23,143 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% 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 265,309 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 299 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.