Literature DB >> 10075178

Using conjoint analysis to take account of patient preferences and go beyond health outcomes: an application to in vitro fertilisation.

M Ryan1.   

Abstract

There has been an assumption in the health economics literature that health outcomes are all that need to be considered when attempting to measure the benefits from health care interventions. This is most evident in the development of the quality adjusted life year (QALY) approach to benefit assessment. This paper challenges this view and considers the technique of conjoint analysis (CA) as a methodology for both taking account of patient preferences and considering attributes beyond health outcomes. The technique is applied to in vitro fertilisation. CA is shown to be sensitive to considering health outcomes, nonhealth outcomes and process attributes. It is also shown to be internally consistent and internally valid. The paper demonstrates the application of CA to estimating willingness to pay indirectly. It is argued that benefit assessment within health economics should extend beyond health outcomes and future research should investigate more thoroughly the potential application of CA in this area. However, methodological issues need addressing before the instrument becomes an established evaluative instrument.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10075178     DOI: 10.1016/s0277-9536(98)00374-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Soc Sci Med        ISSN: 0277-9536            Impact factor:   4.634


  68 in total

1.  Using conjoint analysis to elicit preferences for health care.

Authors:  M Ryan; S Farrar
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2000-06-03

Review 2.  Methods for incorporating patients' views in health care.

Authors:  Michel Wensing; Glyn Elwyn
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2003-04-19

3.  Acceptability of willingness to pay techniques to consumers.

Authors:  Susan J Taylor; Carol L Armour
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2002-12       Impact factor: 3.377

4.  Discrete choice experiments in health economics. For better or for worse?

Authors:  Stirling Bryan; Paul Dolan
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2004-10

5.  The use of multi-criteria decision analysis weight elicitation techniques in patients with mild cognitive impairment: a pilot study.

Authors:  Janine A van Til; James G Dolan; Anne M Stiggelbout; Karin C G M Groothuis; Maarten J Ijzerman
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2008-04-01       Impact factor: 3.883

6.  Assessing Preferences Regarding Healthcare Interventions that Involve Non-Health Outcomes: An Overview of Clinical Studies.

Authors:  Brent C Opmeer; Corianne A J M de Borgie; Ben W J Mol; Patrick M M Bossuyt
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2010-03-01       Impact factor: 3.883

7.  Future challenges for the economic evaluation of healthcare: patient preferences, risk attitudes and beyond.

Authors:  John F P Bridges
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2005       Impact factor: 4.981

8.  Quality of life and relative importance: a comparison of time trade-off and conjoint analysis methods in patients with age-related macular degeneration.

Authors:  P A Aspinall; A R Hill; B Dhillon; A M Armbrecht; P Nelson; C Lumsden; E Farini-Hudson; R Brice; A Vickers; P Buchholz
Journal:  Br J Ophthalmol       Date:  2007-01-17       Impact factor: 4.638

9.  Lean systems approaches to health technology assessment: a patient-focused alternative to cost-effectiveness analysis.

Authors:  John F P Bridges
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2006-12       Impact factor: 4.981

10.  Women's preferences for place of delivery in rural Tanzania: a population-based discrete choice experiment.

Authors:  Margaret E Kruk; Magdalena Paczkowski; Godfrey Mbaruku; Helen de Pinho; Sandro Galea
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2009-07-16       Impact factor: 9.308

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.