Literature DB >> 10790707

The veil of experience: do consumers prefer what they know best?

G Salkeld1, M Ryan, L Short.   

Abstract

There is growing interest from health policy makers in eliciting consumer preferences for health care services. This is particularly the case when assessing the likely impact of innovations. Some people may be wary of innovations because they prefer the service they have previously experienced. Consumer preferences for an existing and a hypothetical new bowel cancer testing programme were measured using a discrete choice experiment questionnaire. The results showed that consumers had a statistically significant preference for the existing service (status quo) when all other factors remained constant. It suggested that consumers make decisions under a 'veil of experience'. Possible explanations for this result include the endowment effect, status quo bias and loss aversion. Future evaluations of health service innovation should be aware of this tendency to favour the status quo. Copyright 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2000        PMID: 10790707     DOI: 10.1002/(sici)1099-1050(200004)9:3<267::aid-hec511>3.0.co;2-h

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Health Econ        ISSN: 1057-9230            Impact factor:   3.046


  35 in total

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

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

2.  Involving patients in primary care consultations: assessing preferences using discrete choice experiments.

Authors:  Mirella F Longo; David R Cohen; Kerenza Hood; Adrian Edwards; Michael Robling; Glyn Elwyn; Ian T Russell
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2006-01       Impact factor: 5.386

3.  Perceptions and preferences for long-acting injectable and implantable medications in comparison to short-acting medications for opioid use disorders.

Authors:  Elizabeth C Saunders; Sarah K Moore; Olivia Walsh; Stephen A Metcalf; Alan J Budney; Emily Scherer; Lisa A Marsch
Journal:  J Subst Abuse Treat       Date:  2020-01-21

Review 4.  Navigating the unknown: shared decision-making in the face of uncertainty.

Authors:  Zackary Berger
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2015-05       Impact factor: 5.128

5.  Benefit-Risk or Risk-Benefit Trade-Offs? Another Look at Attribute Ordering Effects in a Pilot Choice Experiment.

Authors:  Sebastian Heidenreich; Andrea Phillips-Beyer; Bruno Flamion; Melissa Ross; Jaein Seo; Kevin Marsh
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2020-11-11       Impact factor: 3.883

6.  Including Opt-Out Options in Discrete Choice Experiments: Issues to Consider.

Authors:  Danny Campbell; Seda Erdem
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2019-02       Impact factor: 3.883

7.  Using nominal group technique to identify barriers, facilitators, and preferences among patients seeking treatment for opioid use disorder: A needs assessment for decision making support.

Authors:  Dharushana Muthulingam; Joshua Bia; Lynn M Madden; Scott O Farnum; Declan T Barry; Frederick L Altice
Journal:  J Subst Abuse Treat       Date:  2019-01-26

8.  Harnessing the potential to quantify public preferences for healthcare priorities through citizens' juries.

Authors:  Jennifer A Whitty; Paul Burton; Elizabeth Kendall; Julie Ratcliffe; Andrew Wilson; Peter Littlejohns; Paul A Scuffham
Journal:  Int J Health Policy Manag       Date:  2014-06-16

9.  Patient satisfaction with nurse-led telephone follow-up after curative treatment for breast cancer.

Authors:  Merel L Kimman; Monique Mf Bloebaum; Carmen D Dirksen; Ruud Ma Houben; Philippe Lambin; Liesbeth J Boersma
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2010-04-30       Impact factor: 4.430

Review 10.  The views of patients and carers in treatment decision making for chronic kidney disease: systematic review and thematic synthesis of qualitative studies.

Authors:  R L Morton; A Tong; K Howard; P Snelling; A C Webster
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2010-01-19
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.