Preferences of Individuals With Obesity for Online Medical Consultation in Different Demand Scenarios: Discrete Choice Experiments.

Abstract

Background: Obesity is a unique chronic disease, with China having the largest number of people living with overweight and obesity in the world. There has been little research from the demand perspective for online medical consultation (OMC) by individuals living with obesity. With the growing demand for obesity OMC, especially due to the emergence of new pharmacotherapies, such as glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists, individuals living with obesity are seeking both advice on obesity management and the prescription of obesity drugs. Therefore, our demand scenarios defined 2 OMC motivations to manage obesity: "For-Drugs" use and "For-Advice" use.

Objective: This study aims to assess and compare the preferences for For-Drugs and For-Advice OMC among individuals living with obesity in China.

Methods: Following the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research's checklist and comprising 400 participants assigned to the For-Drugs scenario and 400 to the For-Advice scenario, the For-Drugs and For-Advice preferences were estimated through discrete choice experiments. The groups in the 2 scenarios followed a similar distribution, and the 2 different demand scenarios shared the same discrete choice experiment design, comprising 16 choice sets with 6 representative attributes. Mixed logit modeling was used to estimate the willingness to pay and relative importance scores.

Results: Doctors with well-known and general expert titles, versus ordinary doctors; doctors from high-level, provincial, tertiary, and municipal hospitals, versus lower-level county hospitals; less waiting time; and lower OMC fees were preferred in both the For-Drugs and For-Advice scenarios. The differences between the 2 scenarios lay in the consultation format, consultation duration, and the relative importance of consultation duration versus waiting time. The For-Advice group preferred telephone consultations, while the For-Drugs group did not; the For-Drugs group preferred longer consultation duration (β=.029), while the For-Advice group preferred shorter consultation duration (β=-.030); and the For-Drugs group rated consultation duration higher than waiting time, while the For-Advice group rated the waiting time as more important than consultation duration. Combined with our qualitative research, the differences can be explained by the different consultation needs in the 2 scenarios, where longer patient consultations were preferred by the For-Drugs patients who sought detailed advice on drug side effects, while quick and direct responses were preferred by the For-Advice participants.

Conclusions: By revealing user preferences on costs, doctors' titles and hospital level, wait time, and consultation duration and format, our research informs OMC platforms, OMC regulators, and doctors on market segmentation and service differentiation strategies.