A discrete choice experiment to elicit preferences for a liver screening programme in Queensland, Australia: a mixed methods study to select attributes and levels

Implementation of a nurse-delivered, community-based liver screening and assessment program for people with metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (LOCATE-NAFLD trial)

BACKGROUND

With the high burden of Metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), (previously known as Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease - NAFLD) in the community, current models of care that require specialist review for disease risk stratification overwhelm hospital clinic capacity and create inefficiencies in care. The LOCal Assessment and Triage Evaluation of Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease (LOCATE-NAFLD) randomised trial compared usual care to a community-based nurse delivered liver risk assessment. This study evaluates the implementation strategy of the LOCATE model.

METHODS

The evaluation used mixed methods (quantitative trial data and qualitative framework analysis of semi-structured interviews) to explore the general practitioner (GP) and patient perspectives of acceptability (Acceptability Framework), and factors associated with reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation, and maintenance (RE-AIM framework) of the LOCATE model of care.

RESULTS

The LOCATE model was considered highly acceptable by both patients and GPs. The model of care achieved appropriate reach across the participating health services, reaching high-risk patients faster than usual care and with predominantly positive patient experiences. A notable reduction in anxiety and stress was experienced in the intervention group due to the shorter waiting times between referral and assessment. There was an overall perception of confidence in nursing staff capability to perform the community-based screening and GPs indicated confidence in managing low-risk MASLD without the need for specialist review. Challenges to implementation, adoption and maintenance included variable prioritisation of liver disease assessment in complex cases, the need for further GP training in MASLD assessment and treatment pathways, available funding and referral pathways for community screening, and accessibility of effective diet and exercise professional support.

CONCLUSION

Nurse delivered community-based liver screening is highly acceptable to GPs and patients and has shown to be an effective mechanism to identify high risk patients. Adoption and maintenance of the model of care faces significant challenges related to affordable access to screening, prioritisation of liver disease in complex patient cohorts, and unresolved difficulties in prescribing effective strategies for sustained lifestyle intervention in the primary care setting.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The trial was registered on 30 January 2020 and can be found via Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR) - ACTRN12620000158965.

Consumer Preferences for a Healthcare Appointment Reminder in Australia: A Discrete Choice Experiment

BACKGROUND

It is essential to consider the evidence of consumer preferences and their specific needs when determining which strategies to use to improve patient attendance at scheduled healthcare appointments.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to identify key attributes and elicit healthcare consumer preferences for a healthcare appointment reminder system.

METHODS

A discrete choice experiment was conducted in a general Australian population sample. The respondents were asked to choose between three options: their preferred reminder (A or B) or a 'neither' option. Attributes were developed through a literature review and an expert panel discussion. Reminder options were defined by four attributes: modality, timing, content and interactivity. Multinomial logit and mixed multinomial logit models were estimated to approximate individual preferences for these attributes. A scenario analysis was performed to estimate the likelihood of choosing different reminder systems.

RESULTS

Respondents (n = 361) indicated a significant preference for an appointment reminder to be delivered via a text message (β = 2.42, p < 0.001) less than 3 days before the appointment (β = 0.99, p < 0.001), with basic details including the appointment cost (β = 0.13, p < 0.10), and where there is the ability to cancel or modify the appointment (β = 1.36, p < 0.001). A scenario analysis showed that the likelihood of choosing an appointment reminder system with these characteristics would be 97%.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings provide evidence on how healthcare consumers trade-off between different characteristics of reminder systems, which may be valuable to inform current or future systems. Future studies may focus on exploring the effectiveness of using patient-preferred reminders alongside other mitigation strategies used by providers.