Journal Information
Vol. 20. Issue 5.
Pages 342-351 (September - October 2006)
Vol. 20. Issue 5.
Pages 342-351 (September - October 2006)
Originales
Open Access
Priorización de pacientes en lista de espera para cirugía de cataratas: diferencias en las preferencias entre ciudadanos
Prioritizing patients on waiting list for cataract surgery:preference differences among citizens
Visits
1001
Laura Sampietro-Coloma,b,
Corresponding author
lsampietro@catsalut.net

Correspondencia: Laura Sampietro-Colom. Travessera de les Corts, 131-159. Edifici Olimpia. 08028 Barcelona. España.
, Mireia Espallarguesa, Mercè Comasc, Eva Rodríguezd, Xavier Castellsc, José Luis Pintoe
a Agencia de Evaluación de Tecnología e Investigación Médicas, España
b Dirección de Planificación y Evaluación, Departamento de Salud,Generalidad de Cataluña, Barcelona, España
c Servicio de Evaluación y Epidemiología Clínica, Instituto Municipal de Asistencia Sanitaria, España
d Departamento de Economía Aplicada, Universidad de Vigo, Vigo, Pontevedra, España
e Centro de Investigación en Economía y Salud, Universidad Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona, España
This item has received

Under a Creative Commons license
Article information
Abstract
Bibliography
Download PDF
Statistics
Resumen
Objetivos

Estimar y comparar las preferencias de los ciudadanos sobre la priorización de pacientes en lista de espera para cirugía de cataratas.

Método

Análisis de conjunto. Identificación y selección de criterios de priorización: 4 grupos focales/nominales de población general, pacientes/familiares, profesionales relacionados, y especialistas de Catalunya (n=36). Estimación de las preferencias (puntuaciones de los criterios): entrevista a una muestra representativa de los 4 grupos (n=771) y aplicación del modelo del rank-ordered logit. Las diferencias se estudiaron mediante análisis separado por grupo y su comparación.

Resultados

Los criterios seleccionados y su importancia relative fueron: incapacidad visual (45%), limitación de las actividades (15%), limitación para trabajar (14%), tener alguna persona que le cuide (11%), ser cuidador (8%) y probabilidad de recuperación (7%). Existieron diferencias entre grupos en la puntuación de los criterios. La población general y los pacientes/familiares valoraron más la incapacidad visual que los otros grupos (p<0,001). A su vez, estos dos grupos valoraron menos la limitación de las actividades (p<0,001). La probabilidad de recuperación fue uno de los menos valorados por todos los grupos. Aunque las correlaciones de las ordenaciones de pacientes hipotéticos entre grupos fueron altas (r>0,9), la ordenación final de éstos en la lista de espera podia variar hasta 27 posiciones al aplicar las preferencias obtenidas de un grupo o de otro.

Conclusiones

Se consideró relevantes los criterios clínicos y los sociales. La existencia de diferencias sobre cómo deberían priorizarse los pacientes en espera recomienda tener en cuenta las preferencias de todas las partes afectadas.

Palabras clave:
Establecimiento de prioridades
Cirugía electiva
Cataratas
Análisis de conjunto
Preferencias
Participación social
Abstract
Objectives

To estimate and compare citizen preferences regarding patient prioritization for cataract surgery.

Method

A conjoint analysis was performed. Priority criteria were identified and selected using 4 focus/nominal groups consisting of the general public, patients/relatives, allied healthprofessionals and specialists from Catalonia (n=36). Preferences elicitation (score of criteria): representative sample survey of the above mentioned groups (n=771) and rank-ordered logit model application. Differences were assessed by group analysis and their comparison.

Results

The criteria selected and their relative importance were: visual impairment (45%), difficulty in performing activities of daily living (ADL) (15%), limitation of ability to work (14%), being looked after by someone (11%), being a caregiver (8%), and recovery probability (7%). Differences in scores were observed among groups. Visual impairment was scored more highly by the general public and patients/relatives than by other groups (p<0.001). These two groups also assigned less importance to difficulty in performing ADL (p<0.001). The probability of recovery was the least scored criterion by most groups. Correlations among the order of hypothetical patient scenarios were high (r>0.9). However, the final order of patients on the waiting list could differ by up to 27 positions when different group scores were applied.

Conclusions

Social and clinical criteria were considered important. The observed differences among citizens regarding how to prioritize patients on the waiting lists indicates the need to take into account the preferences of all groups of citizens.

Key words:
Priority setting
Elective surgery
Cataract
Conjoint analysis
Preferences
Social participation
Full text is only aviable in PDF
Bibliografía
[1.]
C.A. McCarty, J.E. Keeffe, H.R. Taylor.
The need for cataract surgery: projections based on lens opacity, visual acuity, and personal concern.
Br J Ophthalmol, 83 (1999), pp. 62-65
[2.]
B.E. Klein, R. Klein, K.L. Linton.
Prevalence of age-related lens opacities in a population. The Beaver Dam Eye Study.
Ophthalmology, 99 (1992), pp. 546-552
[3.]
H.A. Kahn, H.M. Leibowitz, J.P. Ganley, M.M. Kini, T. Colton, R.S. Nickerson, et al.
The Framingham Eye Study. I. Outline and major prevalence findings.
Am J Epidemiol, 106 (1977), pp. 17-32
[4.]
H.R. Taylor, A. Sommer.
Cataract surgery. A global perspective.
Arch Ophthalmol, 108 (1990), pp. 797-798
[5.]
Risk factors for age-related cortical, nuclear, and posterior subcapsular cataracts. The Italian-American Cataract Study Group. Am J Epidemiol. 1991;133:541-53.
[6.]
BMA's Health Policy and Economic Research Unit. Waiting List Priorisation Scoring Systems. A discussion paper. London: Head Health Policy and Economic Research Unit; 1998.
[7.]
A.F. Stevens, S. Gillam.
Needs assessment: from theory to practice.
BMJ, 316 (1998), pp. 1448-1452
[8.]
D. Hadorn, Steering Committee of the Western Canada Waiting List Project.
Setting priorities on waiting lists: point-count systems as linear models.
J Health Serv Res Policy, 8 (2003), pp. 48-54
[9.]
Making sense of waiting lists in Canada. Final report. Edmonton, Alberta: Western Canada waiting list project (WCWLP); 2001.
[10.]
J. Neuberger, D. Adams, P. MacMaster, A. Maidment, M. Speed.
Assessing priorities for allocation of donor liver grafts: survey of public and clinicians.
BMJ, 317 (1998), pp. 172-175
[11.]
M.A. Davis, A. Keerbs, J.R. Hoffman, L.J. Baraff.
Admission decisions in emergency department chest pain patients at low risk for myocardial infarction: patient versus physician preferences.
Ann Emerg Med, 28 (1996), pp. 606-611
[12.]
A. Bowling, B. Jacobson, L. Southgate.
Explorations in consultation of the public and health professionals on priority setting in an inner London health district.
Soc Sci Med, 37 (1993), pp. 851-857
[13.]
P.J. Devereaux, D.R. Anderson, M.J. Gardner, W. Putnam, G.J. Flowerdew, B.F. Brownell, et al.
Differences between perspectives of physicians and patients on anticoagulation in patients with atrial fibrillation: observational study.
BMJ, 323 (2001), pp. 1218-1222
[14.]
M. Danis, M.S. Gerrity, L.I. Southerland, D.L. Patrick.
A comparison of patient, family, and physician assessments of the value of medical intensive care.
Crit Care Med, 16 (1988), pp. 594-600
[15.]
M.H. Ebell, D.J. Doukas, M.A. Smith.
The do-not-resuscitate order: a comparison of physician and patient preferences and decision-making.
Am J Med, 91 (1991), pp. 255-260
[16.]
J.A. Druley, P.H. Ditto, K.A. Moore, J.H. Danks, A. Townsend, W.D. Smucker.
Physicians’ predictions of elderly outpatients’ preferences for life-sustaining treatment.
J Fam Pract, 37 (1993), pp. 469-475
[17.]
M. Ryan.
Using conjoint analysis to take account of patient preferences and go beyond health outcomes: an application to in vitro fertilisation.
Soc Sci Med, 48 (1999), pp. 535-546
[18.]
M. Ryan, S. Farrar.
Using conjoint analysis to elicit preferences for health care.
BMJ, 320 (2000), pp. 1530-1533
[19.]
J.L. Pinto, E. Rodríguez, X. Castells, X. Gracia, F.I. Sánchez.
El establecimiento de prioridades en la cirugía elective.
Ministerio de Sanidad y Consumo, Secretaría General Técnica, (2000),
[20.]
P.V. Green, V. Srinivasan.
Conjoint analysis in consumer research: issues and outlook.
J Consum Res, 5 (1978), pp. 103-122
[21.]
R.D. Luce, J.W. Tukey.
Simultaneous conjoint measurement: A new type of fundamental measurement.
J Math Psychol, 1 (1964), pp. 1-27
[22.]
J. Kitzinger.
Qualitative research. Introducing focus groups.
BMJ, 311 (1995), pp. 299-302
[23.]
J. Jones, D. Hunter.
Consensus methods for medical and health services research.
BMJ, 311 (1995), pp. 376-380
[24.]
D.C. Hadorn, A.C. Holmes.
The New Zealand priority criteria project. Part 1: Overview.
BMJ, 314 (1997), pp. 131-134
[25.]
C.D. Naylor, J.I. Williams.
Primary hip and knee replacement surgery: Ontario criteria for case selection and surgical priority.
Qual Health Care, 5 (1996), pp. 20-30
[26.]
SPSS 11.0. Chicago, Illinois: SPSS Inc; 2005.
[27.]
G.E. Box, W.G. Hunter, J.S. Hunter.
Statistics for experimenters, an introduction to design, data analysis and model building.
John Wiley & Sons Inc, (1978),
[28.]
S. Beggs, S. Cardell.
Assessing the potential demand for electric cars.
J Econometrics, 16 (1981), pp. 1-19
[29.]
W.H. Greene.
LIMDEP Version 7.0 User's manual revised editions.
Econometric Software Australia, (2003),
[30.]
L. Sampietro-Colom, E. Espallargues, M.D. Reina, M.D. Estrada.
Opiniones, 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, 33 (2004), pp. 86-94
[31.]
P. Dolan.
Output measures and valuation in health.
Economic evaluation in health care. Merging theory to practice, pp. 46-67
[32.]
J. Jordan, T. Dowswell, S. Harrison, R.J. Lilford, M. Mort.
Health needs assessment. Whose priorities? Listening to users and the public.
BMJ, 316 (1998), pp. 1668-1670
[33.]
A.J. Lloyd.
Threats to the estimation of benefit: are preference elicitation methods accurate?.
Health Econ, 12 (2003), pp. 393-402
Copyright © 2006. Sociedad Española de Salud Pública y Administración Sanitaria
Download PDF
Idiomas
Gaceta Sanitaria
Article options
Tools
es en

¿Es usted profesional sanitario apto para prescribir o dispensar medicamentos?

Are you a health professional able to prescribe or dispense drugs?