4.5 Article

What can discrete choice experiments do for you?

期刊

MEDICAL EDUCATION
卷 52, 期 11, 页码 1113-1124

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/medu.13657

关键词

-

资金

  1. Chief Scientist Office [HERU1] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

CONTEXT In everyday life, the choices we make are influenced by our preferences for the alternatives available to us. The same is true when choosing medical education, training and jobs. More often than not, those alternatives comprise multiple attributes and our ultimate choice will be guided by the value we place on each attribute relative to the others. In education, for example, choice of university is likely to be influenced by preferences for institutional reputation, location, cost and course content; but which of these attributes is the most influential? An understanding of what is valued by applicants, students, trainees and colleagues is of increasing importance in the higher education and medical job marketplaces because it will help us to develop options that meet their needs and preferences. METHODS In this article, we describe the discrete choice experiment (DCE), a survey method borrowed from economics that allows us to quantify the values respondents place on the attributes of goods and services, and to explore whether and to what extent they are willing to trade less of one attribute for more of another. CONCLUSIONS To date, DCEs have been used to look at medical workforce issues but relatively little in the field of medical education. However, many outstanding questions within medical education could be usefully addressed using DCEs. A better understanding of which attributes have most influence on, for example, staff or student satisfaction, choice of university and choice of career, and the extent to which stakeholders are prepared to trade one attribute against another is required. Such knowledge will allow us to tailor the way medical education is provided to better meet the needs of key stakeholders within the available resources.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据