Applicability of discrete-choice methods to economic evaluations of complementary and alternative medicine

References

• Astin JA. Why patients use alternative medicine: results of a national study. JAMA 279, 1548–1553 (1998).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eisenberg DM, Davis RB, Ettner SL et al. Trends in alternative medicine use in the United States, 1990–1997: results of a follow-up national survey. JAMA 280, 1569–1575 (1998).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tindle HA, Davis RB, Phillips RS, Eisenberg DM. Trends in use of complementary and alternative medicine by US adults: 1997–2002. Altern. Ther. Health Med. 11, 42–49 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barnes PM, Powell-Griner E, McFann K, Nahin RL. Complementary and alternative medicine use among adults: United States, 2002. Adv. Data 27, 1–19 (2004).
   Google Scholar
• Manheimer E, Berman B. NCCAM support for the Cochrane Collaboration CAM Field. Complement. Ther. Med. 11, 268–271 (2003).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, Weinstein MC. Cost–Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK (1996).
   Google Scholar
• Hulme C, Long AF. Square pegs and round holes? A review of economic evaluation of complementary and alternative medicine. J. Altern. Complement. Med. 11(1), 179–188 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mooney G. Beyond health outcomes: the benefits of healthcare. Healthcare Anal.6,99–105 (1998).
   Google Scholar
• Ryan M. Using conjoint analysis to take account of patient preferences and go beyond health outcomes: an application to in vitro fertilization. Soc. Sci. Med. 48, 535–546 (1998).
   Google Scholar
• Salkeld G. What are the benefits of preventive healthcare? Healthcare Anal.6, 106–112 (1998).
   Google Scholar
• Furnham A, Bhagrath R. A comparison of health beliefs and behaviors of clients of orthodox and complementary medicine. Br. J. Clin. Psychol. 32, 237–246 (1993).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Furnham A, Forey J. The attitudes, behaviors and beliefs of patients of conventional vs. complementary (alternative) medicine. J. Clin. Psychol. 50, 458–469 (1994).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vick S, Scott A. Agency in healthcare. Examining patients’ preferences for attributes of the doctor-patient relationship. J. Health Econ.17,587–606 (1998).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Petry JJ, Finkel R. Spirituality and choice of healthcare practitioner. J. Altern. Complement. Med. 10, 939–945 (2004).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Honda K, Jacobson JS. Use of complementary and alternative medicine among United States adults: the influences of personality, coping strategies, and social support. Prev. Med. 40, 46–53 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dolan P. The nature of individual preferences: a prologue to Johannesson, Jonsson, and Karlsson. Health Econ. 6, 91–93 (1997).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Donaldson C, Shackley 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
• Ryan M. A role for conjoint analysis in technology assessment in healthcare. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Healthcare 15, 443–457 (1999).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ryan M, Farrar S. Using conjoint analysis to elicit preferences for healthcare. Br. Med. J. 320, 1530–1533 (2000).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bridges JF. Stated preference methods in healthcare evaluation: an emerging methodological paradigm in health economics. Appl. Health Econ. Health Policy 2(4), 213–224 (2003).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Louviere JJ, Hensher DA, Swait JD. Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Application. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK (2000).
   Google Scholar
• Ryan M, Gerard K. Using discrete choice experiments to value healthcare programmes: current practice and future research reflections. Appl. Health Econ. Health Policy 2(1), 55–64 (2003).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Viney R, Lancsar E, Louviere J. Discrete choice experiments to measure consumer preferences for health and healthcare. Expert Rev. Pharmacoeconomics Outcomes Res. 2(4), 319–326 (2002).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Viney R, Savage E, Louviere J. Empirical investigation of experimental design properties of discrete choice experiments in healthcare. Health Econ. 14(4), 349–362 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ryan M, Watson V, Amaya-Amaya M. Methodological issues in the monetary valuation of benefits in healthcare. Expert Rev. Pharmacoeconomics Outcomes Res. 3(6), 717–727 (2003).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Mason S, Tovey P, Long AF. Evaluating complementary medicine: methodological challenges of randomised controlled trials. Br. Med. J.325,832–834 (2002).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Long AF. Outcome measurement in complementary and alternative medicine: unpicking the effects. J. Altern. Complement. Med. 8(6), 777–786 (2002).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miller FG, Emanuel EJ, Rosenstein DL, Straus SE. Ethical issues concerning research in complementary and alternative medicine. JAMA. 291, 599–604 (2004).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eisenberg L. Complementary and alternative medicine: what is its role? Harv. Rev. Psychiatry 10, 221–230 (2002).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cherkin DC, MacCornack FA. Patient evaluations of low back pain care from family physicians and chiropractors. West. J. Med. 150, 351–355 (1989).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Vincent C, Furnham A. Why do patients turn to complementary medicine? An empirical study. Br. J. Clin. Psychol. 35, 37–48 (1996).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sharples FM, van Haselen R, Fisher P. NHS patients’ perspective on complementary medicine: a survey. Complement. Ther. Med. 11, 243–248 (2003).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pagán JA, Pauly MV. Access to conventional medical care and the use of complementary and alternative medicine. Health Aff. (Millwood) 24(1), 255–262 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ritchie CS, Gohmann SF, McKinney WP. Does use of CAM for specific health problems increase with reduced access to care? J. Med. Syst. 29, 143–153 (2005).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Mooney G, Lange M. Ante-natal screening: what constitutes benefit? Soc. Sci. Med. 37, 873–878 (1993).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mootz RD, Phillips RB. Chiropractic belief systems. In: Chiropractic in the United States: Training, Practice, and Research. Cherkin DC, Mootz RD (Eds). Agency for Health Care Policy and Research, MD, USA, 98-N002 (1997).
   Google Scholar
• Stalmeier PF, Unic IJ, Verhoef LC, Van Daal WA. Evaluation of a shared decision making program for women suspected to have a genetic predisposition to breast cancer: preliminary results. Med. Decis. Making 19, 230–241 (1999).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Evans RG, Stoddart GL. Producing health, consuming healthcare. Soc. Sci. Med. 31, 1347–1363 (1990).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cherkin DC. Primary care research on low back pain: the state of the science. Spine 23, 1997–2002 (1998).
   Google Scholar
• Howie JGR, Heaney DJ, Maxwell M, Walker JJ. A comparison of the patient enablement instrument (PEI) against two established satisfaction scales as an outcome measure of primary care consultations. Fam. Pract. 15, 165–171 (1998).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Finnegan MD. Complementary medicine: attitudes and expectations, a scale for evaluation. Complement. Med. Res. 5, 79–82 (1991).
   Google Scholar
• Burns DD, Auerbach A. Therapeutic empathy in cognitive-behavioral therapy: does it really make a difference? In: Frontiers of Cognitive Therapy. Salkovskis P (Ed.). Guildford Press, NY, USA, 134–164 (1996).
   Google Scholar
• Long AF, Mercer G, Hughes K. Developing a tool to measure holistic practice: a missing dimension in outcomes measurement within complementary therapy. Complement. Ther. Med. 8, 26–31 (2000).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paterson C, Britten N. In pursuit of patient-centered outcomes: a qualitative evaluation of the ‘Measure Yourself Medical Outcome Profile’. J. Health Serv. Res. Policy 5, 27–36 (2000).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Paterson C. Measuring outcomes in primary care: a patient generated measure, MYMOP, compared with the SF-35 health survey. Br. Med. J. 312, 1012–1020 (1996).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• EuroQol Group. EuroQol: a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy 16, 199–208 (1990).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ware JE, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med. Care 30, 473–483 (1992).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lancaster K. A new approach to consumer theory. J. Polit. Econ. 74, 132–157 (1966).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McFadden D. Econometric models of probabilistic choice. In: Structural Analysis of Discrete Data with Econometric Applications. Manski CF, McFadden D (Eds). MIT Press, Cambridge, UK (1981).
   Google Scholar
• Ryan M, Scott DA, Reeves C et al. Eliciting public preferences for healthcare: a systematic review of techniques. Health Technol. Assess. 5, 1–186 (2001).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kuhfeld WF, Tobias RD, Garratt M. Efficient experimental design with marketing research applications. J. Market Res. 31, 545–557 (1994).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ratcliffe J. The use of conjoint analysis to elicit willingness-to-pay values. Proceed with caution? Int. J. Technol. Assess. Healthcare 16, 270–275 (2000).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ryan M, Hughes J. Using conjoint analysis to assess women’s preferences for miscarriage management. Health Econ. 6, 261–273 (1997).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harwood RH, Rogers A, Dickinson E, Ebrahim S. Measuring handicap: the London handicap scale, a new outcome measure for chronic disease. Qual. Healthcare 3, 11–16 (1994).
   Google Scholar
• Verhoef CG, Maas A, Stalpers LJA, Verbeek ALM, Wobbes T, van Daal WAJ. The feasibility of additive conjoint measurement in measuring utilities in breast cancer patients. Health Policy 17, 39–50 (1991).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• San Miguel F, Ryan M, McIntosh E. Applying conjoint analysis in economic evaluations: an application to menorrhagia. Applied Econ. 32, 823–833 (2000).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ratcliffe J, Van Haselen R, Buxton M, Hardy K, Colehan J, Partridge M. Assessing patients’ preferences for characteristics associated with homeopathic and conventional treatment of asthma: a conjoint analysis study. Thorax 57, 503–508 (2002).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lloyd A. Threats to the estimation of benefits: are preference elicitation methods accurate? Health Econ. 12, 393–402 (2003).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ryan M, Amaya-Amaya M. ‘Threats’ to and hopes for estimating benefits. Health Econ. 14, 609–620 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cairns J, van der PM, Lloyd A. Decision making heuristics and the elicitation of preferences: being fast and frugal about the future. Health Econ. 11, 655–658 (2002).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Finucane ML, Alhakami A, Slovic P, Johnson SM. The affect heuristic in judgments of risks and benefits. J. Behav. Dec. Making. 13, 1–17 (2000).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fabrega H Jr. Medical validity in Eastern and Western traditions. Perspect. Biol. Med. 45(3), 395–415 (2002).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Slovic P. Trust, emotion, sex, politics and science: surveying the risk-assessment battlefield. In: The Perception of Risk, Chapter 25. Slovic P (Ed.). Earthscan, London, UK (2000).
   Google Scholar
• Kelner MJ, Boon H, Wellman B, Welsh S. Complementary and alternative groups contemplate the need for effectiveness, safety, and cost–effectiveness research. Complement. Ther. Med. 20, 235–239 (2002).
   Google Scholar
• Griffiths V. Eastern and Western paradigms: the holistic nature of traditional Chinese medicine. Aust. J. Holist. Nurs. 6, 35–38 (1999).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar