↓ Skip to main content

Prioritising wheelchair services for children: a pilot discrete choice experiment to understand how child wheelchair users and their parents prioritise different attributes of wheelchair services

Overview of attention for article published in Pilot and Feasibility Studies, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (67th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
57 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Prioritising wheelchair services for children: a pilot discrete choice experiment to understand how child wheelchair users and their parents prioritise different attributes of wheelchair services
Published in
Pilot and Feasibility Studies, July 2016
DOI 10.1186/s40814-016-0074-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nathan Bray, Seow Tien Yeo, Jane Noyes, Nigel Harris, Rhiannon Tudor Edwards

Abstract

Approximately 95 million children worldwide are disabled; 10 % use a wheelchair. In the UK, an estimated 770,000 children are disabled. National Health Service Wheelchair Services are the largest provider of wheelchairs in the UK; however, recent reports have highlighted issues with these services. This study explores the use of discrete choice experiment methods to inform wheelchair service provision for disabled children based on service user preferences. The aim was to explore how disabled children and their parents prioritise different attributes of wheelchair services. The secondary aims were to compare priorities between parents and disabled children and to explore marginal rate of substitution for incremental changes in attributes. Discrete choice experiments are a method of attribute-based stated preference valuation used by health economists to understand how individuals prioritise different attributes of healthcare services and treatments. We conducted the first pilot discrete choice experiment to explore how disabled children (aged 11 to 18) and their parents prioritise different attributes of hypothetical wheelchair services. Eleven disabled children (aged 11 to 18) and 30 parents of disabled children completed eight pairwise choice tasks based on five service attributes: wheelchair assessment, cost contribution, training, delivery time and frequency of review. Data were analysed using conditional logistic regression. For each pairwise choice, the participants were asked to choose which service scenario (A or B) they preferred. Comprehensiveness of wheelchair assessment and wheelchair delivery time significantly (P < 0.05) affected service preferences of children (β-coefficients = 1.43 [95 % bootstrapped CI = 1.42 to 2.08] and -0.92 [95 % bootstrapped CI = -1.41 to -0.84], respectively) and parents (β-coefficients = 1.53 [95 % bootstrapped CI = 1.45 to 2.16] and -1.37 [95 % bootstrapped CI = -1.99 to -1.31], respectively). Parents were willing to contribute more financially to receive preferred services, although this was non-significant. Both samples placed the greatest importance on holistic wheelchair assessments encompassing more than health. The National Health Service should consider using discrete choice experiment methods to examine wheelchair service preferences of disabled children (aged 11 and over) and their parents on a wider scale; however, care must be taken to ensure that this method is used appropriately.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 57 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 57 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 14%
Student > Master 8 14%
Researcher 7 12%
Student > Bachelor 5 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 5%
Other 10 18%
Unknown 16 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 10 18%
Engineering 7 12%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 11%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 5 9%
Psychology 2 4%
Other 7 12%
Unknown 20 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 October 2016.
All research outputs
#6,919,944
of 22,881,154 outputs
Outputs from Pilot and Feasibility Studies
#457
of 1,038 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#117,262
of 363,105 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Pilot and Feasibility Studies
#13
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,881,154 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,038 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 363,105 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.