ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Pregnant women living in rural areas considering their preferred place of birth may have to 'trade-off' travel time/distance and other attributes of care (e.g. the full choice of birthplace options is rarely available locally). This study assesses the preferences and trade-offs of recent mothers who live in remote and rural areas of Great Britain. METHODS: An online survey, informed by qualitative research, was administered to women living in rural areas who had given birth in the preceding 3 years. The survey included a discrete choice experiment (DCE) to elicit women's preferences and trade-offs for place of birth. The DCE presented women with a series of eight choice tasks in which place of birth was defined by four attributes: (1) type of facility, (2) familiarity with staff, (3) understanding options and feel relaxed and reassured and (4) the travel time to the place of intrapartum care. DCE data were analysed using an error components logit model to identify preferences. RESULTS: Across 251 survey responses, holding everything else equal, respondents preferred: intrapartum care in locations with more specialist staff and equipment, locations where they understood their options and felt reassured and where travel time was minimal. Women were willing to travel (92-183 min) to a well-staffed and equipped facility if they understood their options and felt relaxed and reassured. Willingness to travel was reduced if the care received at the specialist facility was such that they did not understand their options and felt tense and powerless (41-132 min). CONCLUSION: These insights into the preferences of recent mums from remote and rural areas could inform future planning of rural intrapartum care.
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Covid-19 expanded the use of remote working to engage with public contributors in health and social care research. These changes have the potential to limit the ability to participate in patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) for some public contributors. It is therefore important to understand public contributors' preferences, so that remote working can be organized in an optimal way to encourage rather than discourage participation. METHODS: We use an economic preference elicitation tool, a discrete choice experiment (DCE), via an online survey, to estimate public contributors' preferences for and trade-offs between different features of remote meetings. The features were informed by previous research to include aspects of remote meetings that were relevant to public contributors and amenable to change by PPIE organizers. RESULTS: We found that public contributors are more likely to participate in a PPIE project involving remote meetings if they are given feedback about participation; allowed to switch their camera off during meetings and step away if/when needed; were under 2.5 h long; organized during working hours, and are chaired by a moderator who can ensure that everyone contributes. Different combinations of these features can cause estimated project participation to range from 23% to 94%. When planning PPIE and engaging public contributors, we suggest that resources are focused on training moderators and ensuring public contributors receive meeting feedback. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Project resources should be allocated to maximize project participation. We provide recommendations for those who work in public involvement and organize meetings on how resources, such as time and financial support, should be allocated. These are based on the preferences of existing public contributors who have been involved in health and social care research. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: We had a public contributor (Naheed Tahir) as a funded coapplicant on the UKRI ESRC application and involved members of the North West Coast Applied Research Collaboration (NWC ARC) Public Advisor Forum at every stage of the project. The survey design was informed from three focus groups held with NWC ARC public contributors. The survey was further edited and improved based on the results of six one-to-one meetings with public contributors.
