Advanced search
Publication Cover
Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research Volume 12, 2012 - Issue 6
Submit an article Journal homepage
244
Views
13
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Perspective

The changing role of economic evaluation in valuing medical technologies

Jason S Rotter Department of Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA; Department of Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA
,
Douglas Foerster Abbott Products Operations AG, Allschwil, Switzerland; University of Bielefeld, School of Public Health, Bielefeld, Germany; Abbott Products Operations AG, Allschwil, Switzerland; University of Bielefeld, School of Public Health, Bielefeld, Germany
&
John FP Bridges Department of Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA; Department of International Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA. [email protected]; Department of Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA; Department of International Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA. [email protected]
Pages 711-723 | Published online: 09 Jan 2014

References

  • Banta D. The development of health-technology assessment. Health Policy 63(2), 121–132 (2003).
  • Goodman C. HTA 101 – Introduction to health-technology assessment. The Lewin Group. (2004).
  • Battista RN, Hodge MJ. The evolving paradigm of health-technology assessment: reflections for the millennium. CMAJ 160(10), 1464–1467 (1999).
  • Sullivan SD, Watkins J, Sweet B, Ramsey SD. Health-technology assessment in health-care decisions in the United States. Value Health 12(Suppl. 2), S39–S44 (2009).
  • Bridges JF, Jones C. Patient-based health-technology assessment: a vision of the future. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care 23(1), 30–35 (2007).
  • Coulter A. Perspectives on health-technology assessment: response from the patient’s perspective. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care 20(1), 92–96 (2004).
  • Rennie D, Luft HS. Pharmacoeconomic analyses: making them transparent, making them credible. JAMA 283(16), 2158–2160 (2000).
  • Hailey D. Toward transparency in health-technology assessment: a checklist for HTA reports. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care 19(1), 1–7 (2003).
  • Pinkerton S, Johnson-Masotti A, Derse A, Layde P. Ethical issues in cost–effectiveness analysis. Eval. Program. Plann. 25, 71–83 (2002).
  • Bombard Y, Abelson J, Simeonov D, Gauvin FP. Eliciting ethical and social values in health-technology assessment: A participatory approach. Soc. Sci. Med. 73(1), 135–144 (2011).
  • Lehoux P, Williams-Jones B. Mapping the integration of social and ethical issues in health-technology assessment. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care 23(1), 9–16 (2007).
  • Streat S, Munn S. Health economics and health-technology assessment: perspectives from Australia and New Zealand. Crit. Care Clin. 28(1), 125–133 (2012).
  • Schubert F. Health-technology assessment. The pharmaceutical industry perspective. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care 18(2), 184–191 (2002).
  • Neumann PJ, Rosen AB, Weinstein MC. Medicare and cost–effectiveness analysis. N. Engl. J. Med. 353(14), 1516–1522 (2005).
  • Birch S, Donaldson C. Valuing the benefits and costs of health care programmes: where’s the ‘extra’ in extra-welfarism? Soc. Sci. Med. 56(5), 1121–1133 (2003).
  • Jena A, Philipson T. Endogenous cost–effectiveness analysis in healthcare technology adoption. NBER Working Paper No. 15032 (2009).
  • Oortwijn WJ, Hanney SR, Ligtvoet A et al. Assessing the impact of health-technology assessment in The Netherlands. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care 24(3), 259–269 (2008).
  • Oliver A, Mossialos E, Robinson R. Health-technology assessment and its influence on health-care priority setting. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care 20(1), 1–10 (2004).
  • Callahan K, Bridges J. Using comparative effectiveness research to inform decision making: Is there a role of economic evaluation? J. Comp. Eff. Res. 1(4), 299–301 (2012).
  • Nielsen CP, Lauritsen SW, Kristensen FB, Bistrup ML, Cecchetti A, Turk E; European network for Health-technology Assessment Work Package 6 Partners. Involving stakeholders and developing a policy for stakeholder involvement in the European network for health-technology assessment, EUnetHTA. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care 25(Suppl. 2), 84–91 (2009).
  • Gagnon MP, Desmartis M, Lepage-Savary D et al. Introducing patients’ and the public’s perspectives to health-technology assessment: A systematic review of international experiences. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care 27(1), 31–42 (2011).
  • Kleijnen S, Goettsch W, d’Andon A et al. Relative Effectiveness Assessment (REA) of Pharmaceuticals. EUnetHTA JA WP5. (2011).
  • Abelson J, Giacomini M, Lehoux P, Gauvin FP. Bringing ‘the public’ into health-technology assessment and coverage policy decisions: from principles to practice. Health Policy 82(1), 37–50 (2007).
  • Wennberg JE. Outcomes research, cost containment, and the fear of health care rationing. N. Engl. J. Med. 323(17), 1202–1204 (1990).
  • Pearson SD, Rawlins MD. Quality, innovation, and value for money: NICE and the British National Health Service. JAMA 294(20), 2618–2622 (2005).
  • Goetghebeur MM, Wagner M, Khoury H, Levitt RJ, Erickson LJ, Rindress D. Bridging health-technology assessment (HTA) and efficient health care decision making with multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA): applying the EVIDEM framework to medicines appraisal. Med. Decis. Making 32(2), 376–388 (2012).
  • Eisenberg JM. Ten lessons for evidence-based technology assessment. JAMA 282(19), 1865–1869 (1999).
  • Henshall C, Schuller T, Mardhani-Bayne L. Using health-technology assessment to support optimal use of technologies in current practice: The challenge of “disinvestment”. Int. J. Technol. Assess Health Care 16, 1–8 (2012).
  • Elshaug AG, Hiller JE, Moss JR. Exploring policy-makers’ perspectives on disinvestment from ineffective healthcare practices. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care 24(1), 1–9 (2008).
  • Robertson J, Walkom EJ, Henry DA. Transparency in pricing arrangements for medicines listed on the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. Aust. Health Rev. 33(2), 192–199 (2009).
  • Davies L, Drummond M, Papanikolaou P. Prioritizing investments in health-technology assessment. Can we assess potential value for money? Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care 16(1), 73–91 (2000).
  • Bridges JF, Onukwugha E, Mullins CD. Healthcare rationing by proxy: cost–effectiveness analysis and the misuse of the $50,000 threshold in the US. Pharmacoeconomics 28(3), 175–184 (2010).
  • Grosse SD. Assessing cost–effectiveness in healthcare: history of the $50,000 per QALY threshold. Expert Rev. Pharmacoecon. Outcomes Res. 8(2), 165–178 (2008).
  • Zivin JG, Bridges JF. Addressing risk preferences in cost–effectiveness analyses. Appl. Health Econ. Health Policy 1(3), 135–139 (2002).
  • Baeten SA, Baltussen RM, Uyl-de Groot CA, Bridges J, Niessen LW. Incorporating equity-efficiency interactions in cost–effectiveness analysis-three approaches applied to breast cancer control. Value Health 13(5), 573–579 (2010).
  • Stolk EA, Brouwer WB, Busschbach JJ. Rationalising rationing: economic and other considerations in the debate about funding of Viagra. Health Policy 59(1), 53–63 (2002).
  • Cohen J, Stolk E, Niezen M. The increasingly complex fourth hurdle for pharmaceuticals. Pharmacoeconomics 25(9), 727–734 (2007).
  • Birch S, Gafni A. Information created to evade reality (ICER): things we should not look to for answers. Pharmacoeconomics 24(11), 1121–1131 (2006).
  • Raftery J. Methodological limitations of cost–effectiveness analysis in health care: implications for decision making and service provision. J. Eval. Clin. Pract. 5(4), 361–366 (1999).
  • Birch S, Gafni A. Cost effectiveness/utility analyses. Do current decision rules lead us to where we want to be? J. Health Econ. 11(3), 279–296 (1992).
  • Bridges J. Lean systems approaches to Health-technology Assessment: A patient focused alternative to cost–effectiveness analysis. Pharmacoeconomics 24(Suppl. 2), 101–109 (2006).
  • Bridges JF. What can economics add to health-technology assessment? Please not just another cost–effectiveness analysis! Expert Rev. Pharmacoecon. Outcomes Res. 6(1), 19–24 (2006).
  • Bridges JF. Future challenges for the economic evaluation of healthcare: patient preferences, risk attitudes and beyond. Pharmacoeconomics 23(4), 317–321 (2005).
  • Danner M, Hummel JM, Volz F et al. Integrating patients’ views into health-technology assessment: Analytic hierarchy process (AHP) as a method to elicit patient preferences. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care 27(4), 369–375 (2011).
  • Ryan M, Scott DA, Reeves C et al. Eliciting public preferences for healthcare: a systematic review of techniques. Health Technol. Assess. 5(5), 1–186 (2001).
  • Marshall D, Bridges JF, Hauber B et al. Conjoint analysis applications in health – how are studies being designed and reported? An update on current practice in the published literature between 2005 and 2008. Patient 3(4), 249–256 (2010).
  • Flynn TN. Valuing citizen and patient preferences in health: recent developments in three types of best–worst scaling. Expert Rev. Pharmacoecon. Outcomes Res. 10(3), 259–267 (2010).
  • Hauber AB. Healthy-years equivalent: wounded but not yet dead. Expert Rev. Pharmacoecon. Outcomes Res. 9(3), 265–269 (2009).
  • Draborg E, Gyrd-Hansen D, Poulsen PB, Horder M. International comparison of the definition and the practical application of health-technology assessment. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care 21(1), 89–95 (2005).
  • Schwarzer R, Siebert U. Methods, procedures, and contextual characteristics of health-technology assessment and health policy decision making: comparison of health-technology assessment agencies in Germany, United Kingdom, France, and Sweden. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care 25(3), 305–314 (2009).
  • Gulácsi L, Orlewska E, Péntek M. Health economics and health-technology assessment in central and eastern Europe: a dose of reality. Eur. J. Health Econ. 13(5), 525–531 (2012).
  • Hutton J. ‘Health Economics’ and the evolution of economic evaluation of health technologies. Health Econ. 21(1), 13–18 (2012).
  • Rawlins MD, Culyer AJ. National Institute for Clinical Excellence and its value judgments. BMJ 329(7459), 224–227 (2004).
  • Weedon D. Health-technology assessment in Australia. Med. J. Aust. 171(10), 551–552 (1999).
  • Nasser M, Sawicki P. Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care: Germany. Issue Brief (Commonw. Fund) 57, 1–12 (2009).
  • Chalkidou K, Tunis S, Lopert R et al. Comparative effectiveness research and evidence-based health policy: experience from four countries. Milbank Q. 87(2), 339–367 (2009).
  • Bridges JF, Cohen JP, Grist PG, Mühlbacher AC. International experience with comparative effectiveness research: case studies from England/Wales and Germany. Adv. Health Econ. Health Serv. Res. 22, 29–50 (2010).
  • Hailey D. Development of the International Network of Agencies for Health-technology Assessment. Int. J. Technol. Assess Health Care 25(Suppl. 1), 24–27 (2011).
  • Menon D, Topfer L. Health-technology assessment in Canada: a decade in review. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care 15(3), 890–896 (2000).
  • Smith R. NICE: a panacea for the NHS? BMJ 318, 823 (1999).
  • Birch S, Gafni A. On being NICE in the UK: guidelines for technology appraisal for the NHS in England and Wales. Health Econ. 11(3), 185–191 (2002).
  • Dear J, O’Dowd C, Timoney A, Paterson KR, Walker A, Webb DJ. Scottish Medicines Consortium: an overview of rapid new drug assessment in Scotland. Scott. Med. J. 52(3), 20–26 (2007).
  • Bryan S, Williams I, McIver S. Seeing the NICE side of cost–effectiveness analysis: a qualitative investigation of the use of CEA in NICE technology appraisals. Health Econ. 16(2), 179–193 (2007).
  • Harris J. It’s not NICE to discriminate. J. Med. Ethics 31(7), 373–375 (2005).
  • Birch S, Gafni A. The ‘NICE’ approach to technology assessment: an economics perspective. Health Care Manag. Sci. 7(1), 35–41 (2004).
  • Towse A, Pritchard C. National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE): Is economic appraisal working? Pharmacoeconomics 20(Suppl. 3), 95–105 (2003).
  • McCabe C, Claxton K, Culyer AJ. The NICE cost–effectiveness threshold: what it is and what that means. Pharmacoeconomics 26(9), 733–744 (2008).
  • Culyer A, McCabe C, Briggs A et al. Searching for a threshold, not setting one: the role of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. J. Health Serv. Res. Policy 12(1), 56–58 (2007).
  • Danzon PM, Towse A, Mulcahy AW. Setting cost–effectiveness thresholds as a means to achieve appropriate drug prices in rich and poor countries. Health Aff. (Millwood) 30(8), 1529–1538 (2011).
  • Steinbrook R. Saying no isn’t NICE – the travails of Britain’s National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. N. Engl. J. Med. 6, 1977–1981 (2007).
  • Towse A. Value based pricing, research and development, and patient access schemes. Will the United Kingdom get it right or wrong? Br. J. Clin. Pharmacol. 70(3), 360–366 (2010).
  • Clement FM, Harris A, Li JJ, Yong K, Lee KM, Manns BJ. Using effectiveness and cost–effectiveness to make drug coverage decisions: a comparison of Britain, Australia, and Canada. JAMA 302(13), 1437–1443 (2009).
  • National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Value Based Pricing: Response to the Department of Health consultation. (2011).
  • Morgan SG, McMahon M, Mitton C et al. Centralized drug review processes in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United kingdom. Health Aff. (Millwood). 25(2), 337–347 (2006).
  • Harvey KJ. The Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme 2003–2004. Aust. New Zealand Health Policy 2(1), 2 (2005).
  • Wörz M, Busse R. Analysing the impact of health-care system change in the EU member states – Germany. Health Econ. 14(Suppl 1), S133–S149 (2005).
  • Carrera P, Bridges J. Health financing reforms in Germany: the relevance of stakeholders. Harvard Health Policy Rev. 9(1), 17–25 (2008)
  • General Methods for the Assessment of the Relation of Benefits to Costs. Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG) (2009).
  • Caro JJ. Methods of economic evaluation for the German statutory healthcare system. Pharmacoeconomics 27(3), 263–264 (2009).
  • Schwartzbach A. Die Effizienzgrenze des IQWiG: Eine gelungene Adaption der Modelle von Markowitz und Koopmans? Sozialer Fortschritt 7, 137–147 (2009).
  • Brouwer WB, Rutten FF. The efficiency frontier approach to economic evaluation: will it help German policy making? Health Econ. 19(10), 1128–1131 (2010).
  • Sculpher M, Claxton K. Sins of omission and obfuscation: IQWIG’s guidelines on economic evaluation methods. Health Econ. 19(10), 1132–1136 (2010).
  • Bundesministerium für Gesundheit. Verordnung über die Nutzenbewertung von Arzneimitteln nach § 35a Absatz 1 SGB V für Erstattungsvereinbarungen nach § 130b SGB V (Arzneimittel-Nutzenbewertungsverordnung – AM-NutzenV). Bundesgesetzblatt (2010).
  • Gandjour A. Germany’s decision rule for setting ceiling prices of drugs: a comparative analysis with other decision rules. Appl. Health Econ. Health Policy 9(2), 65–71 (2011).
  • Methodology Committee of the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI). Methodological standards and patient-centeredness in comparative effectiveness research: the PCORI perspective. JAMA 307(15), 1636–1640 (2012).
  • Subtitle D – Patient-Centered Outcomes Research. US Public Law. 111–148 (2010).
  • Mortimer D, Peacock S. Social welfare and the Affordable Care Act: is it ever optimal to set aside comparative cost? Soc. Sci. Med. 75(7), 1156–1162 (2012).
  • Clancy C, Collins FS. Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute: the intersection of science and health care. Sci. Transl. Med. 2(37), 37cm18 (2010).
  • Plato, The Laws (Translated by AE Taylor). Reprinted by Dutton, NY, USA (1960).
  • Petty W. Treatise of taxes amid contributions. In: The Economic Writings of Sir William Petty. Hull C (Ed.). (1899).
  • Smith A. An Inquiry Into The Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (5th Edition). Cannan E (Ed.), Methuen & Co., Ltd., London, UK (1776).
  • Ricardo D. An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations. In: The Works and Correspondence of David Ricardo. Anonymous 1951–1973 (1821).
  • Mill J. The principles of political economy: with some of their applications to social philosophy. In: The Principles of Political Economy. (7th Edition) Longmans, Green and Co., London, UK (1971).
  • Culyer AJ. Hic sunt dracones: the future of health-technology assessment – one economist’s perspective. Med. Decis. Making 32(1), E25–E32 (2012).
  • DiMasi JA, Hansen RW, Grabowski HG. The price of innovation: new estimates of drug development costs. J. Health Econ. 22(2), 151–185 (2003).
  • Rosen S. Hedonic prices and implicit markets: Product differentiation in pure competition. J. Polit. Econ. 82(1), 34–55 (1974).
  • Lancaster K. A new approach to consumer theory. J. Polit. Econ. 74(2), 132–157 (1966).
  • Reekie W. Price and quality competition in the United States drug industry. J. Ind. Econ. 26(3), 223–227 (1978).
  • Suslow V. Are there better ways to spell relief: a hedonic pricing analysis of ulcer drugs? School of Business Administration, University of Michigan, Working Paper. 696 (1992).
  • Briggs A, Sculpher M, Buxton M. Uncertainty in the economic evaluation of health care technologies: the role of sensitivity analysis. Health Econ. 3(2), 95–104 (1994).
  • Claxton K, Cohen JT, Neumann PJ. When is evidence sufficient? Health Aff. (Millwood) 24(1), 93–101 (2005).
  • Rychetnik L, Frommer M, Hawe P, Shiell A. Criteria for evaluating evidence on public health interventions. J. Epidemiol. Community Health 56(2), 119–127 (2002).
  • Grabowski H, Vernon M. Brand loyalty, entry, and price competition in pharmaceuticals after the 1984 Drug Act. J. Law. Econ. 35(2), 331–350 (1992).
  • Donaldson C, Shackley P. Does ‘process utility’ exist? A case study of willingness to pay for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Soc. Sci. Med. 44(5), 699–707 (1997).
  • Brouwer WB, van Exel NJ, van den Berg B, van den Bos GA, Koopmanschap MA. Process utility from providing informal care: the benefit of caring. Health Policy 74(1), 85–99 (2005).
  • Zwibel HL, Smrtka J. Improving quality of life in multiple sclerosis: an unmet need. Am. J. Manag. Care 17(Suppl. 5 Improving), S139–S145 (2011).
  • Shear NH. Fulfilling an unmet need in psoriasis: do biologicals hold the key to improved tolerability? Drug Saf. 29(1), 49–66 (2006).
  • Antonelli C. The Economics of Innovation, New Technologies, and Structural Change. Routledge, London, UK (2003).
  • Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. (2008).
  • Palmer S, Smith PC. Incorporating option values into the economic evaluation of health care technologies. J. Health Econ. 19(5), 755–766 (2000).
  • Caves R, Whinston M, Hurwtiz M. Patent expiration, entry, and competition in the US pharmaceutical industry. In: Brookings Papers on Economic Activity: MicroeconomicsB aily MN, Winston CM (Eds). (1991).
  • McCabe C, Claxton K, Tsuchiya A. Orphan drugs and the NHS: should we value rarity? BMJ 331(7523), 1016–1019 (2005).
  • Kass-Bartelmes B, Hughes R, Rutherford M. Advance care planning: preferences for care at the end of life. Res. Action 03-0018(12) (2003).
  • Schrag D. The price tag on progress – chemotherapy for colorectal cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 351(4), 317–319 (2004).
  • Zackhauser R. The economics of catastrophes. J. Risk Uncertain 12, 113–140 (1996).
  • Baltussen R, Niessen L. Priority setting of health interventions: the need for multi-criteria decision analysis. Cost Eff. Resour. Alloc. 4, 14 (2006).
  • Strand J, Vågnes M. The relationship between property values and railroad proximity: a study based on hedonic prices and real estate brokers’ appraisals. Transportation 28(2), 137–156 (2001).
  • Linkov I, Varghese A, Jamil S, Seager T, Kiker G, Bridges T. Multi-criteria decision analysis: a framework for structuring remedial decisions at contaminated sites. Comp. Risk Assess. Environ. Decision Making 38, 15–54 (2005).
  • Mendoza GA, Martins H. Multi-criteria decision analysis in natural resource management: a critical review of methods and new modelling paradigms. For. Ecol. Manage. 230, 1–22 (2006).
  • Korhonen P, Moskowitz H, Wallenius J. Multiple criteria decision support – a review. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 63(3), 361–375 (1992)
  • Shaw JW, Johnson JA, Coons SJ. US valuation of the EQ-5D health states: development and testing of the D1 valuation model. Med. Care 43(3), 203–220 (2005).
  • Furlong WJ, Feeny DH, Torrance GW, Barr RD. The Health Utilities Index (HUI) system for assessing health-related quality of life in clinical studies. Ann. Med. 33(5), 375–384 (2001).
  • Kinter ET, Schmeding A, Rudolph I, dosReis S, Bridges JF. Identifying patient-relevant endpoints among individuals with schizophrenia: an application of patient-centered health-technology assessment. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care 25(1), 35–41 (2009).
  • Olsen JA, Richardson J. Preferences for the normative basis of health care priority setting: some evidence from two countries. Health Econ. doi:10.1002/hec.2805 (2012) (Epub ahead of print).
  • Strough J, Karns TE, Schlosnagle L. Decision-making heuristics and biases across the life span. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 1235, 57–74 (2011).
  • Sox HC, Goodman SN. The methods of comparative effectiveness research. Annu. Rev. Public Health 33, 425–445 (2012).
  • Fitzpatrick R, Boulton M. Qualitative methods for assessing health care. Qual. Health Care 3(2), 107–113 (1994).
  • Read JL, Quinn RJ, Berwick DM, Fineberg HV, Weinstein MC. Preferences for health outcomes. Comparison of assessment methods. Med. Decis. Making 4(3), 315–329 (1984).
  • Dolan P, Gudex C, Kind P, Williams A. Valuing health states: a comparison of methods. J. Health Econ. 15(2), 209–231 (1996).
  • Goldman D, Lakdawalla D, Philipson TJ, Yin W. Valuing health technologies at NICE: recommendations for improved incorporation of treatment value in HTA. Health Econ. 19(10), 1109–1116 (2010).
  • Menon D, Stafinski T. Role of patient and public participation in health-technology assessment and coverage decisions. Expert Rev. Pharmacoecon. Outcomes Res. 11(1), 75–89 (2011).
  • Ijzerman MJ, van Til JA, Bridges JF. A comparison of analytic hierarchy process and conjoint analysis methods in assessing treatment alternatives for stroke rehabilitation. Patient 5(1), 45–56 (2012).
  • Saaty T. A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical studies. J. Math. Psychol. 15, 234–281 (1977).
  • Dolan JG, Isselhardt BJ Jr, Cappuccio JD. The analytic hierarchy process in medical decision making: a tutorial. Med. Decis. Making 9(1), 40–50 (1989).
  • Liberatore M, Nydick R. The analytic hierarchy process in medical and health care decision making: a literature review. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 189, 194–207 (2008).
  • Ryan M, Gerard K. Using discrete choice experiments to value health care programmes: current practice and future research reflections. Appl. Health Econ. Health Policy 2(1), 55–64 (2003).
  • Bridges JF, Kinter ET, Kidane L, Heinzen RR, McCormick C. Things are looking up since we started listening to patients: trends in the application of conjoint analysis in health 1982–2007. Patient 1(4), 273–282 (2008).
  • Ryan M. A role for conjoint analysis in technology assessment in health care? Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care 15(3), 443–457 (1999).
  • Viney R, Lancsar E, Louviere J. Discrete choice experiments to measure consumer preferences for health and healthcare. Expert Rev. Pharmacoecon. Outcomes Res. 2(4), 319–326 (2002).
  • Lancsar E, Louviere J. Conducting discrete choice experiments to inform healthcare decision making: a user’s guide. Pharmacoeconomics 26(8), 661–677 (2008).
  • Bridges JF, Hauber AB, Marshall D et al. Conjoint analysis applications in health – a checklist: a report of the ISPOR Good Research Practices for Conjoint Analysis Task Force. Value Health 14(4), 403–413 (2011).
  • Hawley ST. Conjoint analysis: a ‘new’ way to evaluate patients’ preferences. Patient 1(4), 255–257 (2008).
  • Aristides M, Chen J, Schulz M, Williamson E, Clarke S, Grant K. Conjoint analysis of a new chemotherapy: willingness to pay and preference for the features of raltitrexed versus standard therapy in advanced colorectal Cancer. Pharmacoeconomics 20(11), 775–784 (2002).
  • Cunningham CE, Deal K, Rimas H, Chen Y, Buchanan DH, Sdao-Jarvie K. Providing information to parents of children with mental health problems: a discrete choice conjoint analysis of professional preferences. J. Abnorm. Child Psychol. 37(8), 1089–1102 (2009).
  • Bridges JF, Selck FW, Gray GE, McIntyre JA, Martinson NA. Condom avoidance and determinants of demand for male circumcision in Johannesburg, South Africa. Health Policy Plan. 26(4), 298–306 (2011).

Websites

Reprints and Corporate Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below:

Order Reprints Request Corporate Permissions

Academic Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

Obtain permissions instantly via Rightslink by clicking on the button below:

Request Academic Permissions

If you are unable to obtain permissions via Rightslink, please complete and submit this Permissions form. For more information, please visit our Permissions help page.

Related research

People also read lists articles that other readers of this article have read.

Recommended articles lists articles that we recommend and is powered by our AI driven recommendation engine.

Cited by lists all citing articles based on Crossref citations.
Articles with the Crossref icon will open in a new tab.