UserCue
Private EquityHealthcare & Life SciencesInsightsContact
Talk to our team
UserCue
Private EquityHealthcare & Life SciencesInsightsContact
Talk to our team
Newsletter

Stay up to date with UserCue

Case studies, product updates, and findings from our research.

By subscribing, you agree to receive UserCue research notes and product updates. Unsubscribe anytime.

UserCue

Primary research for high-trust industries.

Expert-led. AI-native.

Research for
Private EquityHealthcare & Life Sciences
Insights
Case studies
Company
ContactLinkedInPrivacyTerms
© 2026 UserCue. All rights reserved.
Insights / Case studies / Private Equity

Illustrative case study · Private Equity

Long wear earns a premium on home visits.

A private equity investor looking at a maker of three wound dressings needed to know which ones nurses would switch to at the maker’s prices, and how far each could grow. Inside 16 days, we interviewed 250 senior nurses in inpatient units and home health and delivered the report.

Illustrative scenario
Samplen = 250

Illustrative report

Wound Care Product Evaluation

Which of the maker’s three dressings will nurses switch to at the prices it charges, and how far can each grow?

Study architecture

01
Test the priceSwitching at parity and three premiums, product by product
02
Weigh the proofWhich evidence each setting accepts before a switch
03
Set the ceilingHow far each product could go in three years

Scope

A dressing that saves nurse time may be worth more where each change means a home visit than in an inpatient unit, where a nurse passes every hour.

Sample

250

Senior nurses who choose dressings for an inpatient unit or home health patients.

Research by UserCue
Study typeSwitching study
ScenarioIllustrative
Wound dressing evaluation · Executive reportExecutive summary

Executive summary

Product A earns a premium where nurses travel, and each setting wants its own proof

The 250 senior nurses rated switching to three dressings at parity and at three premiums over the dressing they use now. Product A, the long-wear foam, holds a 25% premium with community nurses, who tie longer wear to fewer home visits; acute nurses switch mostly at parity. Each setting trusts different evidence, and Product A’s three-year ceiling sits in community care.

53%n = 100
of community nurses switch to A at a 25% premium
14%n = 150
of acute nurses switch to A at a 25% premium
38%n = 100
of community patients on Product A at its ceiling
73%n = 150
of acute nurses accept a head-to-head trial

Figures rounded. Base n = 250 senior nurses, 150 acute and 100 community, unless stated.

Top lines

1Product A holds a 25% premium in community careSwitching to Product A by price and setting03
2Product C wins inpatient units at parity, and Product B trails in both settingsSwitching to Products C and B04
3Acute nurses accept a head-to-head trial; community nurses accept an auditEvidence each setting accepts05
4Product A’s three-year ceiling sits in community careAdoption ceiling by product and setting06
5Sample, screener and quality controlWho we interviewed and how07
AAppendixQuestion flow and data tables09

Sample

250 senior nurses

Settings

150 acute, 100 community

Method

AI-moderated interviews, price ladder

Products

3 dressings, 4 prices each

Illustrative report. The company, scenario, and all figures are fictional.

Illustrative report02
Illustrative reportExecutive summary

Illustrative example. The company, scenario, and all figures are fictional. They show UserCue’s method and deliverable format. They do not come from any client study.

The engagement

Illustrative scenario
Delivered in
16

days, with the report, the data file and a live readout.

Interviews
250

Senior nurses who choose dressings for their unit or home health patients.

Audiences
2

150 nurses in acute hospitals and 100 home health nurses.

Method
Price ladder

Three dressings at parity and three premiums over the one in use.

The brief
Client

A private equity investor

Decision

Whether a dressing maker’s three products carry its growth case

Stage

Diligence, before a bid

How we ran it
Approach

AI-moderated interviews with a four-step price ladder per product

Measured

Switching at each price, accepted evidence, three-year ceiling

Sample

Senior nurses leading dressing choice in inpatient units and home health

Headline figures

Premium53%

of community nurses would switch to Product A at a 25% premium over their current dressing

Ceiling38%

of community nurses’ wound patients they expect on Product A in three years, if the evidence exists

Proof64%

of community nurses would accept an audit of home visits saved

The question

Which dressings will nurses switch to, and at what price?

The maker sells three dressings: a long-wear foam (A), a hydrogel sheet (B) and a silicone border (C). Its growth case assumed inpatient units would carry all three at about a 25% premium over the dressings nurses use now. The deal team needed to hear from the nurses who choose dressings, in inpatient units and in home health, before pricing that case.

1

Which product would nurses switch to, and at what price?

2

What evidence would they accept before switching?

3

How far could each product go in three years?

What we did

How the study ran, start to finish.

  1. 1Kickoff

    The deal team names the decision.

    Which of the maker’s three dressings will nurses switch to at the prices it charges? The kickoff turned it into three questions: which products nurses would switch to at each price, what evidence they accept, and each product’s three-year ceiling.

  2. 2Design

    Three dressings, two settings.

    Every nurse had to choose the dressings for their unit or home health patients: 150 senior nurses in acute hospitals and 100 home health nurses. Each saw all three products in rotated order, with switching asked at parity and three premiums over their current dressing.

  3. 3Fielding

    250 senior nurses, in their own words.

    Any nurse who balked at a price named the proof they would need, by voice or text over a median 33 minutes, quant and qual in one conversation. The researcher read all 293 and removed 43 for contradictions or no say over dressings, leaving 250.

  4. 4Analysis

    Fewer home visits carry the premium.

    The researcher crossed switching with care setting, and Product A held its price in community care, where nurses tie longer wear to fewer visits. At a 25% premium, 53% of community nurses would switch to A, against 14% in inpatient units.

  5. 5Readout

    53% would switch at a 25% premium.

    The researcher presented price-switching curves and an adoption ceiling model per product in a 34-page report at a live readout, with the full data file. Product A’s growth case moved to home health, with a home-visit audit funded first.

What we found

Four findings from the report.

Summary

Product A holds a premium in community care, where nurses tie longer wear to fewer home visits; in inpatient units nurses switch mostly at parity. Each setting trusts different proof: acute nurses look to a head-to-head trial, community nurses accept an audit of visits saved. Product A’s three-year ceiling sits in community care.

Wound dressing evaluation · Executive reportTop line 1
1

Top line 1 of 4

Product A holds a 25% premium in community care

1 Q5. Would you switch to Product A at this price, compared with the dressing you use now? Five-point scale, four price steps.

2 Patient load by team is directional; see the appendix tables.

Each nurse saw Product A at parity and at premiums of 25%, 40% and 55% over the dressing they use now. At a 25% premium, 53% of community nurses would switch to Product A, against 14% of acute nurses1. Community nurses tie the premium to fewer home visits: a dressing that stays on longer means fewer trips to the same patient. In inpatient units, where dressings are checked on every round, longer wear counts for less.

53%n = 100
of community nurses switch at a 25% premium
14%n = 150
of acute nurses switch at a 25% premium
74%n = 100
of community nurses switch at parity
46%n = 150
of acute nurses switch at parity

Would switch to Product A, by price and setting

Would switch to Product A, community nurses (n = 100)

50100At price parity74%At a 25% premium53%At a 40% premium33%At a 55% premium19%

Would switch to Product A, acute nurses (n = 150)

At price parity46%At a 25% premium14%At a 40% premium8%At a 55% premium4%

Expect longer wear to cut home visits (n = 100)

Community nurses65%27%
YesUnsureNo

Switching asked at four prices against each nurse’s current dressing, products in rotated order; top-two box on a five-point scale. Quality checks removed 43 of 293 interviews.

Supporting evidence

  • Community nurses with the most patients hold the premium best. § 3.22
  • Acute nurses who switch at parity name ease of removal ahead of wear time. § 3.3
Illustrative report03
Wound dressing evaluation · Executive reportTop line 2
2

Top line 2 of 4

Product C wins inpatient units at parity, and Product B trails in both settings

1 Q6 and Q7. The same switching question for Products C and B, four price steps each.

2 Supply comments are directional and come from open responses.

The other two products show narrower appeal. 52% of acute nurses would switch to Product C at parity, falling to 21% at a 25% premium1. Acute nurses link its silicone border to frequent dressing changes in the hospital. Product B, the hydrogel sheet, draws 28% of acute nurses at parity and stays below 20% at every premium in both settings.

52%n = 150
of acute nurses switch to Product C at parity
21%n = 150
switch to Product C at a 25% premium
28%n = 150
of acute nurses switch to Product B at parity
<20%both settings
Product B at every premium

Would switch to Products C and B, acute nurses

Would switch, acute nurses (n = 150)

50100Product C at parity52%Product B at parity28%Product C at a 25% premium21%Product B at a 25% premium9%

Would switch at parity, community nurses (n = 100)

Product A74%Product C31%Product B24%

Products by switching at parity, acute nurses

  1. 1Product C, silicone border
  2. 2Product A, long-wear foam
  3. 3Product B, hydrogel sheet

Top-two box on a five-point scale at each price step; products shown in rotated order. Acute base n = 150; community base n = 100.

Supporting evidence

  • Product C loses most of its acute switchers at the first premium step. § 4.2
  • Product B draws interest mainly where a current hydrogel is hard to source. § 4.32
Illustrative report04
Wound dressing evaluation · Executive reportTop line 3
3

Top line 3 of 4

Acute nurses accept a head-to-head trial; community nurses accept an audit

1 Q8. Which evidence would you accept before switching your team to a new dressing? Multi-select, n = 250.

2 Committee membership is self-reported.

The proof that would move a nurse depends on the setting. 73% of acute nurses would accept a head-to-head trial, while 64% of community nurses would accept an audit of home visits saved1. Only 27% of acute nurses would take the audit. Community nurses also trust peer reports from other teams (52%). Manufacturer data alone moves few nurses in either setting.

73%n = 150
of acute nurses accept a head-to-head trial
64%n = 100
of community nurses accept a visits-saved audit
52%n = 100
of community nurses trust peer reports
8%n = 100
of community nurses accept manufacturer data alone

Evidence they would accept before switching

Evidence they would accept, community nurses, multi-select (n = 100)

50100Audit of home visits saved64%Peer reports from other home health nurses52%Head-to-head trial38%Manufacturer data alone8%

Evidence they would accept, acute nurses (n = 150)

Head-to-head trial73%Peer reports from other units43%Visits-saved audit27%Manufacturer data alone7%

Would take part in a visits-saved audit (n = 100)

Community nurses46%33%21%
YesMaybeNo

Evidence questions are multi-select; shares do not sum to 100. Audit participation is single select. Asked after the price ladder, of all 250 nurses.

Supporting evidence

  • Community nurses who would accept an audit mostly said one region would be enough. § 5.2
  • Acute nurses who sit on product committees ask for trials most often. § 5.32
Illustrative report05
Wound dressing evaluation · Executive reportTop line 4
4

Top line 4 of 4

Product A’s three-year ceiling sits in community care

1 Q9. In three years, what share of your wound patients could be on each product, if the evidence you need existed? n = 250.

2 The second ceiling repeats Q9 assuming only the maker’s own data.

Nurses estimated the share of their wound patients each product could reach in three years, if the evidence they need exists. Community nurses expect 38% of their wound patients on Product A, against 13% in inpatient units1. Product C’s best setting is acute care, at 22%, and Product B stays in single digits. The adoption ceiling model turns these shares into volume by setting.

38%n = 100
community patients on Product A at the ceiling
13%n = 150
acute patients on Product A at the ceiling
22%n = 150
acute patients on Product C at the ceiling
7%n = 100
community patients on Product B at the ceiling

Three-year adoption ceiling by product and setting

Expected share of wound patients on the product in three years

50100Product A, communityn = 10038%Product C, acuten = 15022%Product A, acuten = 15013%Product C, communityn = 1009%Product B, communityn = 1007%

Best setting, by product

  1. 1Product A: community care
  2. 2Product C: inpatient units
  3. 3Product B: neither setting

Product A ceiling in community care, by evidence assumed

The evidence they named38%The maker’s own data only19%

Each nurse’s expected share of wound patients on the product after three years, if the evidence they named exists; means by setting. The model weights these shares by patient count.

Supporting evidence

  • Community nurses expect most of Product A’s growth among patients with frequent home visits. § 6.2
  • With only the maker’s own data, the community ceiling for Product A falls to 19%. § 6.32
Illustrative report06
Top line 1 of 4 · page 03Illustrative report · top line 1 of 4 · swipeIllustrative report
1
Question 1 · Product A

Product A holds a premium with community nurses.

At a 25% premium over their current dressing, 53% of community nurses would switch to Product A, against 14% of acute nurses. At price parity the gap is narrower, 74% against 46%.

53%community nurses at a 25% premium
14%acute nurses at a 25% premium
Would switch to Product A · n = 100 vs n = 150
2
Question 1 · Products C and B

Product C wins inpatient units at parity, and Product B trails everywhere.

52% of acute nurses would switch to Product C at parity, falling to 21% at a 25% premium. Product B draws 28% of acute nurses at parity and stays below 20% at every premium in both settings.

Product C at parity52%
Product B at parity28%
Product C at a 25% premium21%
Product B at a 25% premium9%
Would switch, acute nurses · n = 150
3
Question 2 · Evidence

Each setting trusts different proof.

73% of acute nurses would accept a head-to-head trial, and only 27% a visits-saved audit. 64% of community nurses would accept an audit of home visits saved, and 52% trust peer reports from other home health nurses.

Acute: head-to-head trial73%
Community: visits-saved audit64%
Community: peer reports52%
Acute: visits-saved audit27%
Evidence they would accept, multi-select · n = 150 vs n = 100
4
Question 3 · The ceiling

Product A’s ceiling sits in community care.

If the evidence they need exists, community nurses expect 38% of their wound patients on Product A in three years, against 13% in inpatient units. Product C’s best setting is acute care, at 22%.

Product A, community38%
Product C, acute22%
Product A, acute13%
Product B, community7%
Expected share of wound patients in three years · n = 100 community, n = 150 acute
“If a dressing stays on longer, that is one less drive to the same house. Show me the visits it saves and I will make the case for the price.”
Home health nursing lead · Illustrative quote

Illustrative quotes

Three themes behind the numbers.

Home visits
“Most of my day is windshield time between patients. A dressing that lasts gives that time back to the ones who need me most.”
Home health nurse
Proof
“On the unit we change on a schedule anyway. I would need a proper head-to-head before I put my name to a more expensive one.”
Nurse manager
Price
“At the same price I would try any of them. Once it costs more, it has to save my team time I can count.”
Senior staff nurse

What the investor did

Three moves made with the report.

1The case · from finding 1

Ran Product A’s growth case through home health.

The model prices Product A at a premium with home health nurses, where 53% of nurses would switch at 25% over their current dressing.

2The evidence · from finding 3

Funded an audit of home visits saved.

The plan pays for the audit before any other evidence: 64% of community nurses would accept it, against 8% for the maker’s own data.

3The range · from finding 2

Priced Product C at parity for inpatient units.

Product C goes to inpatient units at parity, where 52% of acute nurses would switch, and Product B carries no growth in the model.

Illustrative example. The company, scenario, and all figures are fictional. They show UserCue’s method and deliverable format. They do not come from any client study.

Bring us your next pricing question.

A senior researcher designs and presents every study.

Talk to our team

More private equity studies

Adoption forecast

Dental Lab Contract Manufacturing Outlook

Dental lab owners and contract manufacturers
Retention study

Accounting Firm Client Loyalty

Owners and finance leads who hire an accounting firm
Switching study

Outsourced Receivables Recovery Market

Finance leaders who pick or approve their recovery firm