Recent policy reforms in Germany require the introduction of a performance pay component with bonus–malus incentives in the inpatient care sector. We conduct a controlled online experiment with real hospital physicians from public hospitals and medical students in Germany, in which we investigate the effects of introducing a performance pay component with bonus–malus incentives to a simplified version of the German Diagnosis Related Groups (DRG) system using a sequential design with stylized routine cases. In both parts, participants choose between the patient optimal and profit maximizing treatment option for the same eight stylized routine cases. We find that the introduction of bonus–malus incentives only statistically significantly increases hospital physicians’ proportion of patient optimal choices for cases with high monetary baseline DRG incentives to choose the profit maximizing option. Medical students behave qualitatively similar. However, they are statistically significantly less patient oriented than real hospital physicians, and statistically significantly increase their patient optimal decisions with the introduction of bonus–malus incentives in all stylized routine cases. Overall, our results indicate that whether the introduction of a performance pay component with bonus–malus incentives to the (German) DRG system has a positive effect on the quality of care or not particularly depends on the monetary incentives implemented in the DRG system as well as the type of participants and their initial level of patient orientation.

Background: Digital mental health interventions (DMHIs) are capable of closing gaps in the prevention and therapy of common mental disorders. Despite their proven effectiveness and approval for prescription, use rates remain low. The reasons include a lack of familiarity and knowledge as well as lasting concerns. Medical students were shown to have a comparatively higher risk for common mental disorders and are thus an important target group for raising awareness about DMHIs. At best, knowledge is already imparted during medical school using context-sensitive information strategies. Yet, little is known about medical students’ information preferences regarding DMHIs. Objective: This study aims to explore information preferences for DMHIs for personal use among medical students in Germany. Methods: A discrete choice experiment was conducted, which was developed using an exploratory sequential mixed methods research approach. In total, 5 attributes (ie, source, delivery mode, timing, recommendation, and quality criteria), each with 3 to 4 levels, were identified using formative research. Data were analyzed using logistic regression models to estimate preference weights and the relative importance of attributes. To identify subgroups of students varying in information preferences, we additionally performed a latent class analysis. Results: Of 309 participants, 231 (74.8%) with reliable data were included in the main analysis (women: 217/309, 70.2%; age: mean 24.1, SD 4.0 y). Overall, the conditional logit model revealed that medical students preferred to receive information about DMHIs from the student council and favored being informed via social media early (ie, during their preclinic phase or their freshman week). Recommendations from other students or health professionals were preferred over recommendations from other users or no recommendations at all. Information about the scientific evidence base was the preferred quality criterion. Overall, the timing of information was the most relevant attribute (32.6%). Latent class analysis revealed 2 distinct subgroups. Class 1 preferred to receive extensive information about DMHIs in a seminar, while class 2 wanted to be informed digitally (via email or social media) and as early as possible in their studies. Conclusions: Medical students reported specific needs and preferences regarding DMHI information provided in medical school. Overall, the timing of information (early in medical education) was considered more important than the information source or delivery mode, which should be prioritized by decision makers (eg, members of faculties of medicine, universities, and ministries of education). Study findings suggest general and subgroup-specific information strategies, which could be implemented in a stepped approach. Easily accessible digital information may promote students’ interest in DMHIs in the first step that might lead to further information-seeking behavior and the attendance of seminars about DMHIs in the second step.

Objectives To (1) pilot a study of behavioural characterisation based on risk and time preferences in clinically well-characterised individuals, (2) assess the distribution of preferences in this population and (3) explore differences in preferences between individuals with ‘lifestyle-related’ (LS) and ‘non-lifestyle-related’ (NLS) cardiovascular diseases. Design Cross-sectional study with an economic online experiment to collect risk and time preferences, a detailed clinical characterisation and a sociodemographic and lifestyle survey. A definition of LS and NLS groups was developed. Setting Specialist outpatient clinics of the clinic for cardiology and pneumology of the University Hospital Düsseldorf and patients from a cardiology practice in Düsseldorf. Participants A total of 74 individuals with cardiovascular diseases. Outcomes Risk and time preferences. Results The implementation of the study process, including participant recruitment and data collection, ran smoothly. The medical checklist, the survey and the time preference instrument were well received. However, the conceptual understanding of the risk preference instrument resulted in inconsistent choices for many participants (47%). The remaining individuals were more risk averse (27%) than risk seeking (16%) and risk neutral (10%). Individuals in our sample were also more impatient (49%) than patient (42%). The participant classification showed that 65% belonged to the LS group, 19% to the NLS group and 16% could not be assigned (unclear allocation to lifestyle (ULS) group). Excluding the ULS group, we show that individuals in the LS group were more risk seeking, and unexpectedly, more patient than those in the NLS group. Conclusions The process of the pilot study and its results can be used as a basis for the design of the main study. The differences in risk and time preferences between the LS and NLS groups provide us with a novel hypothesis for unhealthy behaviours: individuals never give up a bad habit, they simply postpone the latter, which can be tested alongside other additional research questions.