Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Quality & Safety in Health Care logoLink to Quality & Safety in Health Care
. 2003 Feb;12(1):13–17. doi: 10.1136/qhc.12.1.13

Views of older people on cataract surgery options: an assessment of preferences by conjoint analysis

M Ross 1, A Avery 1, A Foss 1
PMCID: PMC1743653  PMID: 12571339

Abstract

Background: Key issues in the quality of care for people with cataracts in the UK include hospital waiting lists, complication rates from surgery, and the use of junior surgeons. The main objective of this study was to investigate the relative importance that older people attach to these factors when given theoretical choices over options for cataract surgery.

Method: A systematic sample of 194 individuals aged 60–84 years on a general practice register in Nottingham were invited to take part in an interview based survey. Respondents ranked 11 "cataract surgery packages" containing different waiting list lengths, complication risks, and surgeon grades. Conjoint analysis was performed to determine the relative importance of these factors for individuals and for the group as a whole.

Results: Of the 194 subjects invited to participate, 146 (72%) completed the interview. For the group as a whole the "averaged importance" of the factors was: complication risk 45.8%; waiting time 41.1%, surgeon grade 13.1%. Analysis of importance scores for individuals showed that some were particularly concerned about complication risk while others were more concerned about waiting times. There was a strong negative correlation between importance scores for these factors (Spearman's rho –0.78, p<0.001).

Conclusions: Most respondents thought that either risk of damage to sight and/or waiting time were important, while surgeon grade was relatively unimportant. The findings show that some potential cataract patients prefer a greater risk of complication combined with a short wait than a low complication rate and a longer wait.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (131.4 KB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Allinson R. W., Metrikin D. C., Fante R. G. Incidence of vitreous loss among third-year residents performing phacoemulsification. Ophthalmology. 1992 May;99(5):726–730. doi: 10.1016/s0161-6420(92)31904-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Bunch W. H., Chapman R. G. Patient preferences in surgery for scoliosis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1985 Jun;67(5):794–799. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Carroll N. V., Gagnon J. P. Consumer demand for patient-oriented pharmacy services. Am J Public Health. 1984 Jun;74(6):609–611. doi: 10.2105/ajph.74.6.609. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Chinburapa V., Larson L. N., Brucks M., Draugalis J., Bootman J. L., Puto C. P. Physician prescribing decisions: the effects of situational involvement and task complexity on information acquisition and decision making. Soc Sci Med. 1993 Jun;36(11):1473–1482. doi: 10.1016/0277-9536(93)90389-l. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Cruz O. A., Wallace G. W., Gay C. A., Matoba A. Y., Koch D. D. Visual results and complications of phacoemulsification with intraocular lens implantation performed by ophthalmology residents. Ophthalmology. 1992 Mar;99(3):448–452. doi: 10.1016/s0161-6420(92)31954-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Garb H. N. A conjoint measurement analysis of clinical predictions. J Clin Psychol. 1983 Mar;39(2):295–301. doi: 10.1002/1097-4679(198303)39:2<295::aid-jclp2270390229>3.0.co;2-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Gibson J. M., Rosenthal A. R., Lavery J. A study of the prevalence of eye disease in the elderly in an English community. Trans Ophthalmol Soc U K. 1985;104(Pt 2):196–203. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Harrison D. D., Cooke C. W. An elucidation of factors influencing physicians' willingness to perform elective female sterilization. Obstet Gynecol. 1988 Oct;72(4):565–570. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Jarman B. Identification of underprivileged areas. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 1983 May 28;286(6379):1705–1709. doi: 10.1136/bmj.286.6379.1705. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Kahn H. A., Leibowitz H. M., Ganley J. P., Kini M. M., Colton T., Nickerson R. S., Dawber T. R. The Framingham Eye Study. I. Outline and major prevalence findings. Am J Epidemiol. 1977 Jul;106(1):17–32. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a112428. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Klein B. E., Klein R., Linton K. L. Prevalence of age-related lens opacities in a population. The Beaver Dam Eye Study. Ophthalmology. 1992 Apr;99(4):546–552. doi: 10.1016/s0161-6420(92)31934-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Orkin F. K., Grennhow D. E. A study of decision making: how faculty define competence. Anesthesiology. 1978 Apr;48(4):267–271. doi: 10.1097/00000542-197804000-00009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Powe N. R., Schein O. D., Gieser S. C., Tielsch J. M., Luthra R., Javitt J., Steinberg E. P. Synthesis of the literature on visual acuity and complications following cataract extraction with intraocular lens implantation. Cataract Patient Outcome Research Team. Arch Ophthalmol. 1994 Feb;112(2):239–252. doi: 10.1001/archopht.1994.01090140115033. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Rosko M. D., McKenna W. Modeling consumer choices of health plans: a comparison of two techniques. Soc Sci Med. 1983;17(7):421–429. doi: 10.1016/0277-9536(83)90347-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Ryan M., Bate A., Eastmond C. J., Ludbrook A. Use of discrete choice experiments to elicit preferences. Qual Health Care. 2001 Sep;10 (Suppl 1):i55–i60. doi: 10.1136/qhc.0100055... [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Ryan M., Farrar S. Using conjoint analysis to elicit preferences for health care. BMJ. 2000 Jun 3;320(7248):1530–1533. doi: 10.1136/bmj.320.7248.1530. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Ryan M., Scott D. A., Reeves C., Bate A., van Teijlingen E. R., Russell E. M., Napper M., Robb C. M. Eliciting public preferences for healthcare: a systematic review of techniques. Health Technol Assess. 2001;5(5):1–186. doi: 10.3310/hta5050. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Ryan M. Using conjoint analysis to take account of patient preferences and go beyond health outcomes: an application to in vitro fertilisation. Soc Sci Med. 1999 Feb;48(4):535–546. doi: 10.1016/s0277-9536(98)00374-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Shemwell D. J., Yavas U. Congregate care facility selection: a conjoint approach. Health Mark Q. 1997;14(4):109–120. doi: 10.1080/07359689709511136. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Singh J., Cuttler L., Shin M., Silvers J. B., Neuhauser D. Medical decision-making and the patient: understanding preference patterns for growth hormone therapy using conjoint analysis. Med Care. 1998 Aug;36(8 Suppl):AS31–AS45. doi: 10.1097/00005650-199808001-00005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Spoth R. Simulating smokers' acceptance of modifications in a cessation program. Public Health Rep. 1992 Jan-Feb;107(1):81–92. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. van der Pol M., Cairns J. Establishing patient preferences for blood transfusion support: an application of conjoint analysis. J Health Serv Res Policy. 1998 Apr;3(2):70–76. doi: 10.1177/135581969800300203. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Quality & safety in health care are provided here courtesy of BMJ Publishing Group

RESOURCES