Stated preference (SP) survey responses may not predict actual behavior, leading to hypothetical bias. We developed an approach that harnesses largescale routine data to help SP surveys provide more accurate estimates of revealed preferences (RPs), within a study which elicited preferences for alternative changes to the blood service in England. The SP survey responses were used to predict the mean number of annual whole blood donations. Ex ante, the iterative survey design estimated hypothetical bias by contrasting pilot SP survey responses (N = 1254), with individually linked data on RPs, to inform the main SP survey design (N = 25,187). Ex post, the analysis recognized mediation of the relationship between SP and RP when blood donation is deferred. The pilot survey reported that donors' intended donation frequency of 3.2 (men) and 2.6 (women) times per year, exceeded their actual frequency by 41% and 30% respectively. Choice scenario attributes for the main SP survey were then modified, and over-prediction subsequently decreased to 34% for men and 16% for women. The mediating effect of deferrals explained 29% (men) and 86% (women) of the residual discrepancy between SP and RP. Future studies can use this approach to reduce hypothetical bias, and provide more accurate predictions for decision-making. K E Y W O R D Scausal inference, choice experiments, external validity, hypothetical bias, revealed preferences, stated preferences 1 | INTRODUCTION 1.1 | Preferences: stated versus revealed Stated preference (SP) methods are widely used in health economics, for example to estimate the relative value of alternative service changes (DeBekker-Grob, et al., 2012), and to elicit the willingness to pay for health gains. Progress has been made in the development of innovative SP designs (Street, et al., 2001), and analytical methods that respect the This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

IntroductionHealth and care data are routinely collected about care home residents in England, yet there is no way to collate these data to inform benchmarking and improvement. The Developing research resources And minimum data set for Care Homes’ Adoption and use study has developed a prototype minimum data set (MDS) for piloting.Methods and analysisA mixed-methods longitudinal pilot study will be conducted in 60 care homes (approximately 960 residents) in 3 regions of England, using resident data from cloud-based digital care home records at two-time points. These will be linked to resident and care home level data held within routine National Health Service and social care data sets. Two rounds of focus groups with care home staff (n=8–10 per region) and additional interviews with external stakeholders (n=3 per region) will explore implementation and the perceived utility of the MDS. Data will be assessed for completeness and timeliness of completion. Descriptive statistics, including percentage floor and ceiling effects, will establish data quality. For validated scales, construct validity will be assessed by hypothesis testing and exploratory factor analysis will establish structural validity. Internal consistency will be established using Cronbach’s alpha. Longitudinal analysis of the pilot data will demonstrate the value of the MDS to each region. Qualitative data will be analysed inductively using thematic analysis to understand the complexities of implementing an MDS in care homes for older people.Ethics and disseminationThe study has received ethical approval from the London Queen’s Square Research Ethics Committee (22/LO/0250). Informed consent is required for participation. Findings will be disseminated to: academics working on data use and integration in social care, care sector organisations, policy makers and commissioners. Findings will be published in peer-reviewed journals. Partner NIHR Applied Research Collaborations, the National Care Forum and the British Geriatrics Society will disseminate policy briefs.

BackgroundEvidence is required on the cost-effectiveness of alternative changes to the blood collection service.Objectives(1) To estimate the cost-effectiveness of alternative minimum interdonation intervals between whole-blood donations. (2) To investigate donors’ frequency of whole-blood donation according to alternative changes to the blood collection service. (3) To estimate the cost-effectiveness of alternative strategies for maintaining the supply of whole blood.MethodsWe undertook a within-trial cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) of the INTERVAL trial, stated preference (SP) surveys to elicit donor preferences and a CEA of different strategies for blood collection. The strategies considered were reduced minimum intervals between whole-blood donations, introduction of a donor health report and changes to appointment availability and opening times at blood collection venues. The within-trial CEA included 44,863 donors, with men randomly assigned to 12- versus 10- versus 8-week interdonation intervals, and women to 16- versus 14- versus 12-week interdonation intervals. We undertook a SP survey of non-INTERVAL donors (100,000 invitees). We asked donors to state the frequency with which they would be willing to donate blood, according to the service attribute and level. The CEA compared changes to the blood service with current practice by combining the survey estimates with information from the NHS Blood and Transpant database (PULSE) and cost data. The target population was existing whole-blood donors in England, of whom approximately 85% currently donate whole blood at mobile (temporary) blood collection venues, with the remainder donating at static (permanent) blood collection centres. We reported the effects of the alternative strategies on the number of whole-blood donations, costs and cost-effectiveness.ResultsThe reduced donation interval strategies had higher deferral rates caused by low haemoglobin (Hb), but increased frequency of successful donation. For men in the 8- versus 12-week arm of the INTERVAL trial [Di Angelantonio E, Thompson SG, Kaptoge S, Moore C, Walker M, Armitage J,et al.Efficiency and safety of varying the frequency of whole blood donation (INTERVAL): a randomised trial of 45 000 donors.Lancet2017;390:2360–71], the Hb-related deferral rate was 5.7% per session versus 2.6% per session, but the average number of donations over 2 years increased by 1.71 (95% confidence interval 1.60 to 1.80). A total of 25,187 (25%) donors responded to the SP survey. For static donor centres, extending appointment availability to weekday evenings or weekends, or reduced intervals between blood donations, increased stated donation frequency by, on average, 0.5 donations per year. The CEA found that reducing the minimum interval, extending opening times to weekday evenings and extending opening times to weekends in all static donor centres would provide additional whole blood at a cost per additional unit of £10, £23 and £29, respectively, with similar results for donors with high-demand blood types.LimitationsThe study did not consider the long-term rates at which donors will leave the donation register, for example following higher rates of Hb-related deferral.ConclusionsExtending opening hours for blood donation to weekday evenings or weekends for all static donor centres are cost-effective ways of increasing the supply of high-demand blood types.Future workTo monitor the effects of new strategies on long-term donation frequency.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

SUMMARYObjectives: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of changing opening times, introducing a donor health report and reducing the minimum inter-donation interval for donors attending static centres. Background:Evidence is required about the effect of changes to the blood collection service on costs and the frequency of donation.

Background The COVID-19 pandemic has had a significant impact on primary care service delivery with an increased use of remote consultations. With general practice delivering record numbers of appointments and rising concerns around access, funding, and staffing in the UK National Health Service, we assessed contemporary trends in consultation rate and modes (ie, face-to-face versus remote). Objective This paper describes trends in consultation rates in general practice in England for key demographics before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. We explore the use of remote and face-to-face consultations with regard to socioeconomic deprivation to understand the possible effect of changes in consultation modes on health inequalities. Methods We did a retrospective analysis of 9,429,919 consultations by general practitioners, nurses, or other health care professionals between March 2018 and February 2022 for patients registered at 397 general practices in England. We used routine electronic health records from Clinical Practice Research Datalink Aurum with linkage to national data sets. Negative binomial models were used to predict consultation rates and modes (ie, remote versus face-to-face) by age, sex, and socioeconomic deprivation over time. Results Overall consultation rates increased by 15% from 4.92 in 2018-2019 to 5.66 in 2021-2022 with some fluctuation during the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. The breakdown into face-to-face and remote consultations shows that the pandemic precipitated a rapid increase in remote consultations across all groups, but the extent varies by age. Consultation rates increased with increasing levels of deprivation. Socioeconomic differences in consultation rates, adjusted for sex and age, halved during the pandemic (from 0.36 to 0.18, indicating more consultations in the most deprived), effectively narrowing relative differences between deprivation quintiles. This trend remains when stratified by sex, but the difference across deprivation quintiles is smaller for men. The most deprived saw a relatively larger increase in remote and decrease in face-to-face consultation rates compared to the least deprived. Conclusions The substantial increases in consultation rates observed in this study imply an increased pressure on general practice. The narrowing of consultation rates between deprivation quintiles is cause for concern, given ample evidence that health needs are greater in more deprived areas.