Register      Login
Australian Health Review Australian Health Review Society
Journal of the Australian Healthcare & Hospitals Association
Shopping Cart: ( empty )
You are here: Home > Journals > AH > AH24111
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Contents Vol 48(5)

A preference-based value framework to assess healthcare provision in an oil and gas industry

Anton Pak A * , Thomas Pols B , Srinivas Kondalsamy-Chennakesavan C , Matthew McGrail D , Tiana Gurney C , Jordan L. Fox D and Haitham Tuffaha A
+ Author Affiliations
- Author Affiliations

A Centre for the Business and Economics of Health, The University of Queensland, Level 5 CBEH, Building 14, St Lucia, Qld, Australia.

B Shell Health, Shell Australia Pty Ltd, Brisbane, Qld, Australia.

C Rural Clinical School, The University of Queensland, Toowoomba, Qld, Australia.

D Rural Clinical School, The University of Queensland, Rockhampton, Qld, Australia.

* Correspondence to: a.pak@uq.edu.au

Australian Health Review 48(5) 524-529 https://doi.org/10.1071/AH24111
Submitted: 21 April 2024  Accepted: 11 June 2024  Published: 25 June 2024

© 2024 The Author(s) (or their employer(s)). Published by CSIRO Publishing on behalf of AHHA.

Abstract

Objectives

The aim of this study was to develop the Remote Health Value Framework to evaluate the models of healthcare provision for workers in the oil and gas sector, predominantly situated in rural and remote areas.

Methods

The framework was co-designed with the leadership team in one global oil and gas company using a multi-criteria decision analysis approach with a conjoint analysis component. This was used to elicit and understand preferences and trade-offs among different value domains that were important to the stakeholders with respect to the provision of healthcare for its workers. Preference elicitation and interviews were conducted with a mix of health, safety, and environment (HSE) team and non-HSE managers and leaders.

Results

Out of five presented value domains, participants considered the attribute ‘Improving health outcomes of employees’ the most important aspect for the model of healthcare which accounted for 37.3% of the total utility score. Alternatively, the ‘Program cost’ attribute was least important to the participants, accounting for only 11.0% of the total utility score. The marginal willingness-to-pay analysis found that participants would be willing to pay A$9090 per utile for an improvement in a particular value attribute.

Conclusions

This is the first value framework for healthcare delivery in the oil and gas industry, contextualised by its delivery within rural and remote locations. It provides a systematic and transparent method for creating value-based healthcare models. This approach facilitates the evaluation of healthcare investments, ensuring they align with value domains prioritised by the HSE and leadership teams.

Keywords: health economics, health services research, models of healthcare, occupational health, oil and gas, performance and evaluation, rural and remote health, value framework.

References

1  Becker K. Help wanted: Health care workers and mental health services. An analysis of six years of community concerns from North Dakota’s oil boom residents. J Rural Stud 2018; 63: 15-23.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

2  Fox J, Gurney T, Kondalsamy-Chennakesavan S, Pols T, Tuffaha H, Pak A, et al. A Narrative Review of Health Status and Healthcare Delivery in the Oil and Gas Industry: Impacts on Employees, Employers, and Local Communities. Healthcare 2023; 11(21): 2888.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |

3  Spence D. Corporate social responsibility in the oil and gas industry: The importance of reputational risk. Chi-Kent L Rev 2011; 86(1): 59-86.
| Google Scholar |

4  Syarnubi A, Sembiring R, Siswaya T, Zuraida R. Performance, productivity, and safety and health among employee of oil and gas company in Qatar. IOP Conf Ser Earth Environ Sci 2018; 195: 012075.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

5  Weinberg A, Laufman L, Parish D, Crossett T. Using the Oil and Gas Producers Guidelines on Strategic Health Management: Achieving Sustainable Healthcare Improvement. SPE International Conference on Health, Safety and Environment in Oil and Gas Exploration and Production. SPE; 2002.

6  Sharpies P, Rhodes A. Managing Health for Field Operations in Oil and Gas Activities. SPE International Conference and Exhibition on Health, Safety, Environment, and Sustainability? SPE; 2012.

7  Dick F, Ponsonby W. Occupational Health in Remote Environments. In: Norman J, Valentine M, editors. Remote Medicine: A Textbook For Trainee And Established Remote Healthcare Practitioners. World Scientific; 2020. pp. 237–257.

8  Schneider J, Ghettas S, Merdaci N, Brown M, Martyniuk J, Alshehri W, et al. Towards sustainability in the oil and gas sector: benchmarking of environmental, health, and safety efforts. J Environ Sustain 2013; 3(3): 6.
| Google Scholar |

9  Belton V, Stewart T. Multiple criteria decision analysis: an integrated approach. Springer Science & Business Media; 2002.

10  Drummond M, Sculpher M, Claxton K, Stoddart G, Torrance G. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. Oxford University Press; 2015.

11  dosReis S, Butler B, Caicedo J, Kennedy A, Hong , Zhang C, et al. Stakeholder-Engaged Derivation of Patient-Informed Value Elements. Patient 2020; 13(5): 611-21.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |

12  Hong Y, Zhang C, Slejko JF, dosReis S. CP3 Eliciting value elements for a patient-driven value assessment. Value in Health 2019; 22: S37.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

13  NSW Ministry of Health. System priorities for value based healthcare research. Guidance on topics for VBHC research and partnerships; 2021. Available at https://www.health.nsw.gov.au/Value/Pages/vbhc-research.aspx

14  Hansen P, Hendry A, Naden R, Ombler F, Stewart R. A new process for creating points systems for prioritising patients for elective health services. Clin Governance 2012; 17(3): 200-9.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

15  Hansen P, Ombler F. A new method for scoring additive multi‐attribute value models using pairwise rankings of alternatives. J Multi-Crit Decis Anal 2008; 15(3–4): 87-107.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

16  1000minds. 1000minds decision-making and conjoint analysis software; 2024. Available at https://www.1000minds.com

17  Evers S, Paulus A. Health economics and integrated care: a growing and challenging relationship. Int J of Integr Care 2015; 15: e024.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |

18  Zhang M, Bao Y, Lang Y, Fu S, Kimber M, Levine M, et al. What is value in health and healthcare? A systematic literature review of value assessment frameworks. Value in Health 2022; 25(2): 302-17.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |

19  Marsh K, Dolan P, Kempster J, Lugon M. Prioritizing investments in public health: a multi-criteria decision analysis. J Public Health 2013; 35(3): 460-6.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |

20  Asare BY, Kwasnicka D, Powell D, Robinson S. Health and well-being of rotation workers in the mining, offshore oil and gas, and construction industry: a systematic review. BMJ Glob Health 2021; 6(7): e005112.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |

21  Hayk A-C. Enabling locally-embedded corporate social responsibility: A constructivist perspective on international oil companies delivering healthcare in rural Ghana. Extr Ind Soc 2019; 6(4): 1224-33.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

22  O’Dea A, Flin R. Site managers and safety leadership in the offshore oil and gas industry. Saf Sci 2001; 37(1): 39-57.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

23  Scott‐Ladd B, Travaglione A, Marshall V. Causal inferences between participation in decision making, task attributes, work effort, rewards, job satisfaction and commitment. Leadersh Org Dev J 2006; 27(5): 399-414.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

24  Coulter A. Engaging patients in healthcare. McGraw-Hill; 2011.

25  Crawford M, Rutter D, Manley C, Weaver T, Bhui K, Fulop N, et al. Systematic review of involving patients in the planning and development of health care. BMJ 2002; 325: 1263.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |