Table 1. A summary of the included studies from the literature review .
| Row | Author (s) (year of publication) | Study population | Study aim (s) | The method of selection attributes | Final attributes [levels] |
|
1 |
John C. Hershey, Howard Kunreuther et al. (1984) (39) | 480 people | To elicit preferences for different cost-sharing alternatives |
NA* |
Deductible amount [Base($100), $10, $50, $250, $500] |
| Coinsurance rate [Base(20% of the next $10,000), 1%, 10%, 20%] | |||||
| Coinsurance limit (the maximum dollar amount for which the coinsurance rate appears)[Base( $10,100 and $250,000), $5000, $10,000, $15,000, $20,000, $25,000] | |||||
| Maximum liability (the maximum medical expenditures covered by the policy)[Base($250,000), $30,000, $50,000, $100,000, $1,000,000] | |||||
| Relative Price (was calculated as actuarial cost based on first four component value modified by a percentage adjustment up or down ranging from -20% to +20%.[Base ($0), -20%, -10%, +10%, +20%] | |||||
| 2 |
Roger Gates, Carl McDaniel, Karin Braunsberger (2000)(33) |
506 consumers |
to explain how choice-based conjoint analysis can be used to create health plans |
focus groups and the telephone study | Carrier providing health care coverage [Americare/ ProProvider/National Company] |
| Doctor quality [Excellent (top 10%)/ Very good (top 25%)/ Good (top 50%)] | |||||
| Hospital choice [Any hospital/ Two or three with Metro Hospital/ Two or three without Metro Hospital] | |||||
| Monthly premium [$100 emp. or $300 family/ $150 emp. or $450 family/$200 emp. or $600 family] | |||||
| Physician network [Choose any doctor/ Half of the doctors with current personal doctor/One-fourth of the doctors with current personal doctor/Half without current personal doctor/One-fourth without current personal doctor] | |||||
| Cost per Dr. visit [$10/ $25/$40] | |||||
| Prescription coverage [ Pay 50%, no max/ Pay 50%, $500 max/ Pay nothing, $300 max/ Pay $10 brand/$5 generic] | |||||
| Wellness visits [Covered/ Not covered] | |||||
| Dental coverage [Check-up and fillings/ Check-up only/Not covered] | |||||
| Vision coverage [Eye exam and 50% eyewear/Eye exam only/Not covered] | |||||
|
3 |
Jan J. Kerssens, Peter P. Groenewegen(2005)(37) |
361 persons of the major Dutch health insurance funds |
Investigating the preferences of people for Dutch social health insurance organizations |
literature review | Fixed premium per month [€ 10 per person/ € 15 per person/€ 20 per person] |
| Deductibles per year [None/ € 100 per policy/ € 200 per policy] | |||||
| No-claim discount [10% discount/ 5% discount/None] | |||||
| Extension of services [ Insurance and financial services/ All kind of insurances/ Health insurance only] | |||||
| Amount of red tape [None/ 10 min per form/20 min per form] | |||||
| Medical help-desk [Yes/No] | |||||
| Choice of family Physicians [Free choice/ 50% of physicians nearby/ 20% of physicians nearby] | |||||
| Choice of hospitals [All hospitals/Half of hospitals nearby/ One hospital nearby] | |||||
| Dental benefits [Complete (incl. caps, etc.)/ Preventive services only/ None] | |||||
| Physical therapy Benefits [Complete/ Maximum 18 sessions per year/Maximum 9 sessions per year] | |||||
| Benefits for prescription Drugs [Complete/ Copayment for expensive medication/ Copayment € 2 per receipt] | |||||
| Benefits for Homeopathy [Complete/ 50%Copayment / None] | |||||
| 4 | Karolin Becker and Peter Zweifel (2008) (38) |
A telephone survey of 1000 people aged >24 years living in the German- and French-speaking parts of Switzerland |
To study the relationship between age and WTP for additional choices in Swiss social health insurance |
attributes that are currently under political debate were chosen |
Deductible [Status quo: SwF230, 400, 600, 1200, 1500 per year/ SwF0, 2400, 4800 per year] |
| Co-payment[Status quo: 10% (= 0) with a maximum of SwF600 20% (=1) with a maximum of SwF1200] | |||||
| Alternative medicine [Status quo: some treatment methods are covered (= 0)/ More alternative treatment methods are covered (= 1)] | |||||
| Medication[Status quo: all drugs on the list are reimbursed (= 0)/ The cheapest product on the market is reimbursed (=1)] | |||||
| Access to innovation[Status quo: all treatment methods are covered as soon as they get approved(= 0)/ Innovative treatment methods are covered only 3 years after introduction (=1)] | |||||
| Premium [Increase in the monthly premium by SwF50, 25, or 10/ Decrease in the monthly premium by SwF50, 25, or 10( SwF = Swiss franc)] | |||||
|
5 |
Bernard van den Berg, Paula Van Dommelen et al. (2008) (31) |
631 people in two groups: high risk (with chronic disease) and low risk (without chronic disease) |
to examine preferences of Dutch consumers and to evaluate trade-offs between various aspects of health insurance plans |
based on a prior researches |
Quality of contracted care: 1. Health after treatment [excellent versus good/ very good versus good/ moderate versus good/ bad versus good], 2. Your insurer reimburses prevention activities [yes versus no], 3. Your insurer reimburses disease specific activities [yes versus no] and 4. Your care provider involves you in treatment decisions [yes versus no] |
| Quality of providing customer services: 1. Insurer’s solving complaints and questions [good versus bad], 2.Speed of reaction of your insurer [good versus bad], 3. Ease of contacting your insurer[good versus bad] and 4.Providing information through your insurer [good versus bad] | |||||
| Premium per year (euro)[950/1075/1200] | |||||
| 6 |
Janet MacNeil Vroomen, Peter Zweifel (2011) (40) |
1000 people in Germany and 763 respondents in Netherlands |
to see whether preferences between Germany and Netherland populations are different and to test the test the presumption that having a chronic condition has a different influence on preferences depending on the country |
According to contexts |
Physician choice [For Germany:(Status quo: Free choice of physician, Physician list based on cost and quality criteria, Gatekeeper model, Integrated physician network) For Netherlands: ( Status quo: Gatekeeper model, Free choice of physician, Choice of physician based on cost and quality criteria, Integrated network supply)] |
| Second opinion [Germany:(Status quo: Fee for an initial physician visit and a specialist visit without referral, Second opinion without additional fee)] | |||||
| Hospital wait [Netherlands: ( Status quo: Undefined waiting period for hospital treatment, Waiting period of 4 weeks max. guaranteed)] | |||||
| Additional services [Germany and Netherlands: ( Status quo: No particular services provided by insurers, Patient coach/case manager provided by insurer)] | |||||
| Incentive system [Germany: ( Status quo: No incentive system, Contribution rebate for no claims of EUR 500/year, Deductible of EUR 500/year, Bonus for health-conscious behavior), Netherlands: ( Status quo: Bonus for no claims of EUR 255/maximum, Contribution rebate for no claims of EUR 500/year, Deductible of EUR 500/year, Bonus for health-conscious behavior)] | |||||
| Insurance contribution[Germany: ( Status quo: No change in contribution of EUR ± 200, 300, 400, and 500/year), Netherlands: ( Status quo: No change, Change in contribution of EUR ± 100, 200, 250, and 300/year)] | |||||
|
7 |
Margaret E. Kruk, Peter C. Rockers et al. (2011) (41) |
1,431 respondents in rural, northern Liberia |
To quantify the influence of health system attributes on preferences for health clinics in Liberia, |
a literature review, discussions with policy makers, develop a candidate list of attributes for the DCE, Held four focus groups to reduce the number of attributes and determine levels |
Waiting time[30 minutes/2 hours/ 4 hours] |
| Respectful treatment [Clinic workers respect you/Clinic workers do not respect you] | |||||
| Availability of medicines [Needed medicines are always in stock/ Needed medicines are not always in stock] | |||||
| Quality of the physical exam [The nurse examines you carefully/ The nurse does not examine you carefully] | |||||
| Cost [50 Liberian dollars/ 200 Liberian dollars/ 500 Liberian dollars/ 1,000 Liberian dollars/ 1,500 Liberian dollars] | |||||
| Management [Government manages the clinic/An NGO manages the clinic] | |||||
|
8 |
Anoo Nanna(2011) (6) |
1,200 heads of households from five districts who were covered by the Gold Card scheme |
to elicit WTP for public health insurance (the Gold Card scheme) in Thailand |
Qualitative Study (interview) |
An average waiting time for out-patient-Department (OPD)[15 min/ 30 min/ 45 min] |
| Choice of hospitals [All public health care providers/ All private health care providers/ All health care providers] | |||||
| Premium (per three months)[100 Baht/ 300 Baht/ 500 Baht] | |||||
|
9 |
Papar Kananurak (2013) (35) | 300 workers under the Social Health Insurance (SHI) scheme, aged> 40 years |
To evaluation the WTP for health insurance after retirement for workers under SHI in Thailand. |
in-depth interviews with health insurance agents, studying health insurance policies, and focus groups with the workers | Outpatients healthcare expenses[3,000 Baht x 6 times per year (OPD1) / 5,000 Baht x 12 times per year (OPD2)] |
| Inpatients healthcare expenses [100,000 Baht per year (IPD1)/ 300,000 Baht per year (IPD2)] | |||||
| Long- term care expenses [500 Baht per day (Maximum 90 days) (LTC1)/ 1,000 Baht per day (Maximum 90 days) (LTC2)] | |||||
| Work compensation per day during hospital admission[1,000 Baht x 20 days per year (COMP1)/1,000 Baht x 45 days per year(COMP2)] | |||||
| Health insurance premium [500/ 800/1,000/ 2,000 Baht per month] | |||||
|
10 |
Selma van der Haar (2013) (36) |
101 women in rural Nepal |
Estimation demand for a health cooperative program in rural Nepal | Focus group discussion, | Premium (in NPR. per person per month) [100/ 120 /140] |
| Co-payment for pharmacy (in percentage)[10 / 20 / 30] | |||||
| Type of package[Individual/ core family/ extended family] | |||||
| 11 | Gilbert Abotisem Abiiro, Aleksandra Torbica et al. (2014) (19) |
814 household heads and/or their spouse(s) in two rural districts |
To examine preferences for prospective micro health insurance (MHI) scheme |
Literature review, Qualitative studies (12 focus grouped and 8 deep interview) |
Unit of enrollment [ Individual/ Core nuclear family/ Entire extended family] |
| Management [Bvumbwe SACCO/ An external NGO/Community committee] | |||||
| Health service benefit package[Basic: drugs only/ Medium: drugs, lab tests/x-rays/ Comprehensive: drugs, lab test/x-rays, and surgical Operations] | |||||
| Copayment[50% (half)/ 25% (quarter)/No copayment] | |||||
| Transport[No transport/ Only during referral and emergencies/always: From home to health facility any time sick] | |||||
| Premium level per person per month[100 Malawian kwacha (MWK)/300 Malawian kwacha (MWK)/500 Malawian kwacha (MWK)] |