Discrete choice experiments to measure consumer preferences for health and healthcare

References

• Ben-Akiva M, Lerman SR. Discrete choice analysis: theory and application to travel demand MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA (1985).
   Google Scholar
• ••Overview of the theory and estimation of choice models.
   Google Scholar
• Hensher D. Stated preference analysis of travel choices: the state of practice. 7iansportation 21,107–133 (1994).
   Google Scholar
• Ben-Akiva M, Boccara B. Discrete choice models with latent choice sets. int. J Res. Mark. 12,9–24 (1995).
   Google Scholar
• Adamowicz W, Louviere J,Williams M. Combining revealed and stated preference methods for valuing environmental amenities. J Environmental Manage. Econ. 26,271–292 (1994).
   Google Scholar
• Madden G, Simpson M. Residential broadband subscription demand: an econometric analysis of australian choice experiment data. Appl. Econ. 29,1073–1078 (1997).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Propper C. Contingent valuation of time spent on NHS waiting lists. Econ. J 100, 193–199 (1990).
   Google Scholar
• Lancaster K. A new approach to consumer theory. Polit. Econ. 74,132–157 (1966).
   Google Scholar
• Thurstone LL. A law of comparative judgement. Fiychol. Rev 34,283–286 (1927).
   Google Scholar
• McFadden D. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior, In: Frontiers of econometrics. Zarembka P (Ed.). Academic Press, New York, USA, 105–142 (1973).
   Google Scholar
• Manski C. The structure of random utility models. Theor. Decis 8,229–154 (1977).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Louviere JJ, Hensher DA, Swait JD. Stated choice methods: analysis and applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK (2000).
   Google Scholar
• ••Key text in this area. Detailed explanation of theory and application of stated preference methods and discrete choice analysis. See in particular for an overview of experimental design and estimation of discrete choice experiments. Key practical issues are discussed in a number of case studies.
   Google Scholar
• Ryan M, Huges J. Using conjoint analysis to assess women's preferences for miscarriage management. Health Econ. 6, 261–273 (1997).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van der Pol M, Cairns J. Establishing patient preferences for blood transfusion support: An application of conjoint analysis. J Health Serv. Res. Policy 3,70–76 (1998).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ratcliffe J, Buxton M. Patients' preferences regarding the process and outcomes of life-saving technology. An application of conjoint analysis to liver transplantation. Int.j 7i,chnol. Assess. 15,340-351 (1999).
   Google Scholar
• Ryan M. Using conjoint analysis to take account of patient preferences and go beyond health outcomes: an application to in vitro fertilisation. Social Sci. Med. 48, 535–546 (1999).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Telser H, Zweifel P Measuring willingness-to-pay for risk reduction: an application of conjoint analysis. Health Econ. 11,129–139 (2002).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Louviere J. Choice experiments: an overview of concepts and issues, In: The choice modelling approach to environmental valuation, Bennett J, Blamey R (Eds). Edward Elgar, Northampton, UK, 13–36 (2001).
   Google Scholar
• ••Excellent overview of the concepts andissues involved in designing a DCE.
   Google Scholar
• Hanley N, Mourato S. Choice modelling approaches: a superior alternative for environmental valuation? J Econ. Surv 15, 435–462 (2001).
   Google Scholar
• •Very useful outline of the theory and methods and a useful comparison of DCEs and contingent valuation.
   Google Scholar
• Ryan M, Farrar S. Using conjoint analysis to elicit preferences for healthcare. BE Med J. 320,1530–1533 (2000).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Drummond MF, Stoddart GL,Torrance GW. Methods for the economic evaluation of healthcare programmes. 2nd ed. Oxford Medical Publications, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK (1997).
   Google Scholar
• Hawthorne G, Richardson J. Measuring the value of program outcomes: a review of multiattribute utility measures. Expert Rev Pharmacoeconomics Outcomes Res. 1,215–228 (2001).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Pliskin J, Shepard D,Weinstein M. Utility functions for life years and health status. Oper. Res. 28,206–224 (1980).
   Google Scholar
• Bleichrodt H. QALYS and HYEs: Under what conditions are they equivalent? J. Health Econ. 13,17–37 (1995).
   Google Scholar
• Hall J. Consumer Utility, Social Welfare and Genetic Testing. A Response to 'Genetic Testing: An Economic and Contractarian Analysis'. J Health Econ. 15, 377–380 (1996).
   Google Scholar
• Hall J, Viney R, Haas M. Taking a count: the evaluation of genetic testing. Aust. NZ Public Health 22,754–758 (1998).
   Google Scholar
• Mooney G. Beyond health outcomes: The benefits of healthcare. Healthcare Anal. 6, 99–105 (1998).
   Google Scholar
• Johannesson M. Quality-adjusted life-years versus healthy-years equivalents - A comment. Health Econ. 14,9–16 (1995).
   Google Scholar
• Bleichrodt H, Quiggin J. Characterizing QALYs under a General Rank Dependent Utility Model. j Risk Uncertainty15,151–165 (1997).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nord E, Pinto JL, Richardson J, Menzel P, Ubel P Incorporating societal concerns for fairness in numerical valuations of health programmes. Health Econ. 8,25–39 (1999).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hall J, Viney R, Haas M, Louviere J. Using stated preference discrete choice modelling to evaluate healthcare programs. J. Bus. Res. (In Press).
   Google Scholar
• Donaldson C, ShacIdey P. Does process utility exist? A case study of willingness to pay for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Soc. Sci. Med. 44,699–707 (1997).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Slesnick D. Empirical approaches to the measurement of welfare. J. Econ. Lit. 36, 2108–2165 (1998).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Diener A, O'Brien B, Gafni A. Healthcare contingent valuation studies: a review and classification of the literature. Health Econ. 7,313–326 (1998).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith R, Olsen JA, Harris A. A review of methodological issues in the conduct of WTP studies in healthcare II: Administration of a CV survey, Centre for Health Program Evaluation, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia (1999).
   Google Scholar
• Bennett J, Blamey R. The choke modelling approach to envimnmental valuation. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK (2001).
   Google Scholar
• ••Good overview of DCEs and methodological issues, particularly the chapters by Louviere and Bennet and Adarnowicz.
   Google Scholar
• Chakraborty G, Ettenson R, Gaeth G. How consumers choose health insurance: Analyzing employees' selection process in a multiplan environment identifies the trade-offs consumers make and the benefits that affect their decision making. I Healthcare Marketing 14, 21–33 (1994).
   Google Scholar
• Hall J, Kenny P, King M etal. Using stated preference discrete choice modelling to evaluate the introduction of varicella vaccination. Health Econ. 11,457–465 (2002).
   Google Scholar
• Bryan S, Buxton M, Sheldon R, Grant A. Magnetic resonance imaging for the investigation of knee injuries: an investigation of preferences. Health Econ. 7, 595–603 (1998).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hundley V, Ryan M, Graham W Assessing women's preferences for intrapartum care. Birth-Iss Perinat C. 28,254–263 (2001).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scott A. Eliciting GPs' preferences for pecuniary and non-pecuniary job characteristics. J. Health Econ. 20,329–347 (2001).
   Google Scholar
• Scott A, Vick S. Patients, doctors and contracts: an application of principal-agent theory to the doctor-patient relationship. Scottish Political Econ. 46, 111–134 (1999).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gyrd-Hansen D. Analysing public preferences for cancer screening programmes. Health Econ. 10,617–634 (2001).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bryan S, Gold L, Sheldon R, Buxton M. Preference measurement using conjoint methods: an empirical investigation of reliability. Health Econ. 9,385–395 (2000).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lancsar E. Deriving welfare measures from stated preference discrete choice modelling experiments. CHERE Discusssion Paper, Centre for Health Economics Research and Evaluation, University of Technology, Sydney, Australia (2002).
   Google Scholar
• Jan S, Mooney G, Ryan M, Bruggemann K, Alexander K. The use of conjoint analysis to elicit community preferences in public health research: a case study of hospital services in South Australia. Aust. NZI. Public Health 24,64–70 (2000).
   Google Scholar
• San Miguel F, Ryan M, McIntosh E. Applying conjoint analysis in economic evaluations: an application to menorrhagia. Appl. Econ. 32,823-833 (2000).
   Google Scholar
• Farrar S, Ryan M, Rossb D, Ludbrook A. Using discrete choice modelling in priority setting: an application to clinical service developments. Soc. Sci. Med. 50,63–75 (2000).
   Google Scholar
• van der Pol M, Cairns J. Estimating time preferences for health using discrete choice experiments. Soc. Sci. Med 52,1459–1470 (2001).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• San Miguel F, Ryan M, Scott A. Are preferences stable? The case of healthcare. J. Econ. Behar,. Organ. 48, 1–14 (2002).
   Google Scholar
• Johnson FR, Banzhaf MR, Desvousges WH. Willingness to pay for improved respiratory and cardiovascular health: a multiple-format, stated-preference approach. Health Econ. 9,295–317 (2000).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maddala G. Limited-dependent and qualitative variables in econometrics. Econometric Society Monographs in Quantitative Economics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK (1983).
   Google Scholar
• Hakim Z, Pathak DS. Modelling the EuroQol data: a comparison of discrete choice conjoint and conditional preference modelling. Health Econ. 8,103–116 (1999).
   Google Scholar
• Louviere J, Street D, Carson R etal. Dissecting the random component of utility. Marketing Lett. 13,175–191 (2002).
   Google Scholar
• ••Challenging paper outlining the methodological frontiers in DCEs.
   Google Scholar
• Farrar S, Ryan M. Response-ordering effects: a methodological issue in conjoint analysis. Health Econ. 8,75–79 (1999).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar