Societal preferences for fertility treatment in Australia: a stated preference discrete choice experiment

References

• Mascarenhas MN, Flaxman SR, Boerma T, et al. National, regional, and global trends in infertility prevalence since 1990: a systematic analysis of 277 health surveys. PLoS Med 2012;9(12):e1001356
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Adamson GD, de Mouzon J, Chambers GM, et al. International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technologies. World report on assisted reproductive technologies, 2011. Fertil Steril 2018;110(6):1067–1080
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chambers GM, Sullivan EA, Ishihara O, et al. The economic impact of assisted reproductive technology: a review of selected developed countries. Fertil Steril 2009;91(6):2281–94
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berg Brigham K, Cadier B, Chevreul K. The diversity of regulation and public financing of IVF in Europe and its impact on utilization. Hum Reprod 2013;28(3):666–75
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Connolly MP, Hoorens S, Chambers GM. The costs and consequences of assisted reproductive technology: an economic perspective. Hum Reprod Update 2010;16:603–13
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chambers GM, Zhu R, Hoang V, et al. A reduction in public funding for fertility treatment - an econometric analysis of access to treatment and savings to government. BMC Health Serv Res 2012;12:142
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Resolve. US National Infertility Association. Insurance Coverage. 2018. Available at: https://resolve.org/what-are-my-options/insurance-coverage/infertility-coverage-state/ [Last accessed October 2018]
   Google Scholar
• Devlin N, Parkin D. Funding fertility: issues in the allocation and distribution of resources to assisted reproduction technologies. Hum Fertil 2003;6(supp 2):S2–S6
   Google Scholar
• de Bekker-Grob EW, Ryan M, Gerard K. Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature. Health Econ 2012;21:145–72
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Settumba SN, Shanahan M, Botha W, et al. Reliability and validity of the contingent valuation method for estimating willingness to pay: a case of in vitro fertilisation. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 2018
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Briggs A. A view from the bridge: health economic evaluation—a value-based framework? Health Econ 2016;25:1499–502
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McFadden D. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. in Frontiers in econometrics, P. Zarembka, (Ed.). 1974, Academic Press. p. 105–142
   Google Scholar
• Lancaster KJ. A new approach to consumer theory. J Polit Econ 1966;74:132–57
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ryan M, Gerard K, Amaya-Amaya M. Discrete choice experiments in a nutshell, in using discrete choice experiments to value health and health care. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands; 2008. P. 13–46
   Google Scholar
• McIntosh E, Clarke P, Frew E, et al. Applied methods of cost-benefit analysis in health care. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2010
   Google Scholar
• Ryan M, Kolstad J, Rockers P, et al. How to conduct a discrete choice experiment for health workforce recruitment and retention in remote and rural areas: a user guide with case studies, in CapacityPlus. Geneva: World Bank and World Health Organization; 2012
   Google Scholar
• Hensher D, Rose J, Greene W. Applied choice analysis analysis. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2015
   Google Scholar
• van Empel IW, Dancet EA, Koolman XH, et al. Physicians underestimate the importance of patient-centredness to patients: a discrete choice experiment in fertility care. Human Reprod 2011;26:584–93
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van den Wijngaard L, Rodijk I, van der Veen F, et al. Patient preference for a long-acting recombinant FSH product in ovarian hyperstimulation in IVF: a discrete choice experiment. Human Reprod 2014;30:331–7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coast J, Al-Janabi H, Sutton EJ, et al. Using qualitative methods for attribute development for discrete choice experiments: issues and recommendations. Health Econ 2012;21:730–41
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vass C, Rigby D, Payne K. The role of qualitative research methods in discrete choice experiments. Med Decis Making 2017:37(3):298–313
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ikenwilo D, Heidenreich S, Ryan M, et al. The best of both worlds: an example mixed methods approach to understand men’s preferences for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms. Patient 2018;11(1):55–67
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Katz DA, Stewart KR, Paez M, et al. Development of a discrete choice experiment (DCE) questionnaire to understand veterans’ preferences for tobacco treatment in primary care. Patient 2018;11(6):649–663
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Botha W, Donnolley N, Shanahan M, et al. Assessment of the societal and individual preferences for fertility treatment in Australia: study protocol for stated preference discrete choice experiments. BMJ Open 2018;8:e020509
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aarts JWM, Huppelschoten AG, van Empel IWH, et al. How patient-centred care relates to patients' quality of life and distress: a study in 427 women experiencing infertility. Hum Reprod 2012;27:488–95
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Empel IWH, Aarts JWM, Cohlen BJ, et al. Measuring patient-centredness, the neglected outcome in fertility care: a random multicentre validation study. Hum Reprod 2010;25:2516–26
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Empel IWH, Dancet EAF, Koolman XHE, et al. Physicians underestimate the importance of patient-centredness to patients: a discrete choice experiment in fertility care. Hum Reprod 2011;26:584–93
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dancet EAF, Nelen WLDM, Sermeus W, et al. The patients’ perspective on fertility care: a systematic review. Hum Reprod Update 2010;16:467–87
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Palumbo A, De La Fuente P, Rodríguez M, et al. Willingness to pay and conjoint analysis to determine women’s preferences for ovarian stimulating hormones in the treatment of infertility in Spain. Hum Reprod 2011;26:1790–8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Porter R, Kissel C, Saunders H, et al. Patient and nurse evaluation of recombinant human follicle-stimulating hormone administration methods: comparison of two follitropin injection pens. Curr Med Res Opin 2008;24:727–35
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dancet EAF, D'Hooghe TM, Spiessens C, et al. Quality indicators for all dimensions of infertility care quality: consensus between professionals and patients. Hum Reprod 2013;28:1584–97
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mourad SM, Nelen WLDM, Akkermans RP, et al. Determinants of patients’ experiences and satisfaction with fertility care. Fertil Steril 2010;94:1254–60
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cousineau TM, Green TC, Corsini E, et al. Online psychoeducational support for infertile women: a randomized controlled trial. Hum Reprod 2008;23:554–66
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Empel IWH, Nelen WLDM, Tepe ET, et al. Weaknesses, strengths and needs in fertility care according to patients. Hum Reprod 2010;25:142–9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Silva S, Barros H. Perspectives on access to in vitro fertilization in Portugal. Rev Saude Publica 2012;46:344–50
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dancet EAF, D'Hooghe TM, Sermeus W, et al. Patients from across Europe have similar views on patient-centred care: an international multilingual qualitative study in infertility care. Hum Reprod 2012;27:1702–11
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Malin M, Hemminki E, Räikkönen O, et al. What do women want? Women’s experiences of infertility treatment. Soc Sci Med 2001;53:123–33
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Hoof W, Provoost V, Pennings G. Reflections of Dutch patients on IVF treatment in Belgium: a qualitative analysis of internet forums. Hum Reprod 2013;28:1013–22
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Iaconelli A, Jr, Setti AS, Braga DPAF, et al. Main concerns regarding in vitro fertilization techniques: results of a website survey. Fertil Steril 2013;100:S66
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chambers GM, Adamson GD, Eijkemans MJ. Acceptable cost for the patient and society. Fertil Steril 2013;100:319–27
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klitzman R. How much is a child worth? Providers’ and patients’ views and responses concerning ethical and policy challenges in paying for ART. PloS One 2017;12:e0171939
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hiligsmann M, van Durme C, Geusens P, et al. Nominal group technique to select attributes for discrete choice experiments: an example for drug treatment choice in osteoporosis. Patient Prefer Adher 2013;7:133
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• QSR International Pty Ltd, NVivo qualitative data analysis Software version 11. Melbourne, Australia; 2012
   Google Scholar
• Kløjgaard ME, Bech M, Søgaard R. Designing a stated choice experiment: the value of a qualitative process. J Choice Model 2012;5:1–18
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ratcliffe J, Longworth L. Investigating the structural reliability of a discrete choice experiment within health technology assessment. Int J Tech Assess Health Care 2002;18:139–44
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Viney R, Savage E, Louviere J. Empirical investigation of experimental design properties of discrete choice experiments in health care. Health Econ 2005;14:349–62
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lancsar E, Louviere J. Conducting discrete choice experiments to inform healthcare decision making. Pharmacoeconomics 2008;26:661–77
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rose JM, Bliemer MC. Constructing efficient stated choice experimental designs. Transport Rev 2009;29:587–617
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pfarr C, Schmid A, Schneider U. Using discrete choice experiments to understand preferences in health care. Health Care Provision and Patient Mobility 2014;12:27–48
   Google Scholar
• Louviere JJ, Hensher DA, Swait JD. Stated choice methods: analysis and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2000
   Google Scholar
• Choicemetrics. Ngene 1.2: User manual and reference guide. Sydney, Australia: Choice Metrics Pty Ltd.; 2018
   Google Scholar
• Hensher DA. Stated preference analysis of travel choices: the state of practice. Transportation 1994;21:107–33
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dolan P, Olsen JA, Menzel P, et al. An inquiry into the different perspectives that can be used when eliciting preferences in health. Health Econ 2003;12:545–51
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marshall D, Bridges JP, Hauber B, et al. Conjoint analysis applications in health—how are studies being designed and reported? Patient 2010;3:249–56
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• de Bekker-Grob EW, Donkers B, Jonker MF, et al. Sample size requirements for discrete-choice experiments in healthcare: a practical guide. Patient 2015;8:373–84
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• de Bekker-Grob E, Bliemer M, Donkers B, et al. Patients’ and urologists’ preferences for prostate cancer treatment: a discrete choice experiment. Br J Cancer 2013;109:633–40
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Orme B. Getting started with conjoint analysis: strategies for product design and pricing research. Madison, WI: Research Publishers; 2006
   Google Scholar
• Rose J, Bliemer MJ. Sample size requirements for stated choice experiments. Transportation 2013;40:1021–41
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bennett J. Some fundamentals of environmental choice modelling. Research report no.11. Australia: School of Economics and Management, University of New South Wales; 1999
   Google Scholar
• Ryan M, Gerard K. Using discrete choice experiments to value health care programmes: current practice and future research reflections. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 2003;2:55–64
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Mentzakis E, Ryan M, McNamee P. Using discrete choice experiments to value informal care tasks: exploring preference heterogeneity. Health Econ 2011;20:930–44
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kjaer T. A review of the discrete choice experiment-with emphasis on its application in health care. Denmark: Syddansk Universitet; 2005
   Google Scholar
• Flynn TN, Bilger M, Malhotra C, et al. Are efficient designs used in discrete choice experiments too difficult for some respondents? A case study eliciting preferences for end-of-life care. PharmacoEconomics 2016;1–12
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Flynn TN. Where next for discrete choice health valuation exercises? Soc Sci Res Network 2016. Available at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2810444 [Last accessed 2 September 2018].
   Google Scholar
• Train KE. Discrete choice methods with simulation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2009
   Google Scholar
• Bech M, Gyrd‐Hansen D. Effects coding in discrete choice experiments. Health Econ 2005;14:1079–83
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hauber AB, González JM, Groothuis-Oudshoorn CG, et al. Statistical methods for the analysis of discrete choice experiments: a report of the ISPOR conjoint analysis good research practices task force. Value Health 2016
   Google Scholar
• Lancsar E, Fiebig DG, Hole AR. Discrete choice experiments: a guide to model specification, estimation and software. PharmacoEconomics 2017;35:697–716
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fiebig DG, Keane MP, Louviere J, et al. The generalized multinomial logit model: accounting for scale and coefficient heterogeneity. Market Sci 2010;29:393–421
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gu Y, Hole AR, Knox S. Fitting the generalized multinomial logit model in Stata. Stata J 2013;13:382–97
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vass CM, Wright S, Burton M, et al. Scale heterogeneity in healthcare discrete choice experiments: a primer. Patient 2018;11:167–73
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hole AR. Discrete choice methods in health economics, in health econometrics. Bingley, United Kingdom: Emerald Publishing Limited; 2018. p. 85–99
   Google Scholar
• Hole AR, Kolstad JR. Mixed logit estimation of willingness to pay distributions: a comparison of models in preference and WTP space using data from a health-related choice experiment. Empir Econ 2012;42:445–69
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Revelt D, Train K. Mixed logit with repeated choices: households’ choices of appliance efficiency level. Rev Econ Stat 1998;80:647–57
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goossens LM, Utens CM., Smeenk FW, et al. Should I stay or should I go home? A latent class analysis of a discrete choice experiment on hospital-at-home. Value Health 2014;17:588–96
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hole AR. Modelling heterogeneity in patients’ preferences for the attributes of a general practitioner appointment. J Health Econ 2008;27:1078–94
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• StataCorp, L. Stata data analysis and statistical Software. Release. 2015. 14
   Google Scholar
• González JM, Doan J, Gebben DJ, et al. Comparing the relative importance of attributes of metastatic renal cell carcinoma treatments to patients and physicians in the United States: a discrete-choice experiment. PharmacoEconomics 2018:1–14
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hole AR. A comparison of approaches to estimating confidence intervals for willingness to pay measures. Health Econ 2007;16:827–40
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carlsson F. Non-market valuation: stated preference methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2011
   Google Scholar
• Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Claxton K, et al. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2015
   Google Scholar
• van der Pol M, McKenzie L. Costs and benefits of tele-endoscopy clinics in a remote location. J Telemed Telecare 2010;16:89–94
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lancsar E, Savage E. Deriving welfare measures from discrete choice experiments: inconsistency between current methods and random utility and welfare theory. Health Econ 2004;13:901–7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Karlström A. Appraisal. In: Hess S, Daly A, editors. Handbook of choice modelling. Cheltenham, United Kingdom: Edward Elgar Publishing; 2014. p 601–26
   Google Scholar
• Ryan M. Deriving welfare measures in discrete choice experiments: a comment to Lancsar and Savage (1). Health Econ 2004;13:909–12
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Fifer S, Rose J. Hypothetical bias in stated preference experiments: is it a problem? And if so, how do we deal with it? Transportation research part A: policy and practice 2014;61:164–177
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ben-Akiva M, McFadden D, Train K. Foundations of stated preference elicitation consumer behavior and choice-based conjoint analysis. in Society for economic measurement annual conference. Paris, France; 2016. Available at: http://eml.berkeley.edu/∼train/foundations.pdf 97 Discrete Choice Methods in Health Economics [Last accessed 1 September 2018]
   Google Scholar