Introduction Identifying costs and values in healthcare interventions as well as the ability to measure and consider costs relative to value for patients are pivotal in clinical decision-making and medical education. This study explores residents’ preferences in educating value-based healthcare (VBHC) during postgraduate medical education. Exploring residents’ preferences in VBHC education, in order to understand what shapes their choices, might contribute to improved medical residency education and healthcare as a whole.
Methods A discrete choice experiment (DCE) examined which conditions for educating VBHC are preferred by residents. DCE gives more insight into the trade-off’s residents make when choosing alternatives, and which conditions for educating VBHC have the most influence on residents’ preference.
Results This DCE shows that residents prefer knowledge on both medical practice as well as the process of care—to be educated by an expert on VBHC together with a clinician. They prefer limited protected time to conduct VBHC initiatives (thus while at work) and desire the inclusion of VBHC in formal educational plans.
Conclusion When optimising graduate and postgraduate medical education curricula, these preferences should be considered to create necessary conditions for the facilitation and participation of residents in VBHC education and the set-up of VBHC initiatives.
- Health services administration & management
- Health economics
- Quality in health care
- Organisational development
- Medical education & training
- Change management
Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Contributors CYGN, LAS, WNKAVM, BABE made substantial contributions to the design and conception of the study. CYGN and LAS were mainly involved in the acquisition of data. BAB took the lead in data analysis. From the residents’ perspective, SEMV and RHLH helped the other authors with the interpretation of data. LPSS, LAS and WNKAVM further elaborated on the interpretation of the data. All authors revised the article for important intellectual content, where CYGN and BABE took the lead, mainly for the revisions. All authors approved the final version of the manuscript being submitted.
Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests None declared.
Patient consent for publication Not required.
Ethics approval Approved by the NVMO Ethical Review Board (NERB file number: 774), which operates commissioned by the Dutch Association for Medical Education (NVMO).
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Data availability statement Data are available upon reasonable request.