1

The PATH segmentation and profiling system in healthcare

2

What are some attitude & behavioral dimensions you would consider for profiling users of healthcare?

3

PATH Segmentation and Profiling System is a method of segmenting adult populations based upon their health care values and priorities

http://media.haymarketmedia.com/documents/1/survey_572.pdf

Naturalist - 9%

Loyalist- 12%Family Centered- 9%

Traditionalist- 10%

Independent Health- 12%

Ready User- 12%

Generic- 9%

Avoider- 10%

Clinic Cynic- 7%90% of patients fall into one of nine different PATH groups based on their pattern of health care values and priorities

4

5

Clinic Cynic Generally distrustful of the medical profession, poor adherence to treatment, suspicious of ads & their promises, fairly uninvolved in wellness, responds to issues as they occur.

Avoider Refrains from using healthcare services until very sick or injured, shows most health apathy, not participate in competitive sports or good nutrition, moderately receptive to ads, dominated by males.

Generic Tends to balance concern for cost with concern for quality, shops around to save healthcare dollars, experiment with alternative healthcare delivery, active, informed information seeker, open to advertising, adherence adversely affected by costs.

Family Centered

Puts family health above all other matters, enjoys role as family health decision maker, moderate information seeker but pays attention to healthcare advertising.

Traditionalist Willing to pay more for quality and tends to use the same providers, can be brand-driven, among easiest to satisfy, high rates of chronic disease but underutilizes Rx, low receptivity to ads..

Loyalist Moderation in healthcare opinions & behaviors, average interest in health information, nutrition & fitness; interested in saving money but willing to pay for better quality care.

Ready User Actively seeks and uses healthcare services of all kinds, least likely to avoid & undeterred by expense. Frequent use of Rx, good nutrition but rarely does heavy exercise, attentive to ads but skeptical.

Independently Healthy

Very actively involved in their own health, active in exercise, sports, good nutrition. Likely to try different providers and healthcare alternatives, looks for long-term benefits, fairly involved in seeking healthcare information.

Naturalist Propensity to use non-traditional or alternative healthcare, concerned with nutrition & staying active but not sports. Skeptical of ads and providers, contrary opinions, high expectations, difficult to satisfy.

The PATH Segments

6

7

PATH Segment % using internet to look up health information is last 12

monthsClinic cynic 2

Avoider 9

Generic 21

Traditionalist 4

Family centered 15

Loyalist 9

Ready user 14

Independently healthy 16

Naturalist 11

8

9

How similar are groups who access information?

10

When we don’t make distinctions among patient segments and treat them all with the same service type and level, resources may be wasted (see Fig. 1).

However, when we can segment based on user characteristics, we can customize type and level of services to each group thereby preserving resources (see Fig. 2).

Figure 1

Figure 2

11

Some Links for the PATH Model

• Navarro, F. H., & Wilkins, S. T. (2001). A new perspective on consumer health web use: “Valuegraphic” health profiles of information health seekers. Managed Care Quarterly 9(2), 35-43. (CSS Library)

• Institute for Healthcare Improvement (2013). One size does not fit all: Think segmentation. Retrieved from http://www.ihi.org/knowledge/Pages/ImprovementStories/OneSizeDoesNotFitAllThinkSegmentation.aspx

• Shaller, D. (2005). Consumers in healthcare: The burden of choice. California Healthcare Foundation. Retrieved from http://www.chcf.org/~/media/MEDIA%20LIBRARY%20Files/PDF/C/PDF%20ConsumersInHealthCareBurdenChoice.pdf

• Wilkins, S. T., & Navarro, F. H. (nd). Has the web really empowered healthcare consumers? Marketing Health Services. Retrieved from http://www.marketingpower.com/ResourceLibrary/Publications/MarketingHealthServices/2001/21/3/5497160.pdf

12

END