Literature DB >> 11533440

Use of discrete choice experiments to elicit preferences.

M Ryan1, A Bate, C J Eastmond, A Ludbrook.   

Abstract

This paper considers the application of discrete choice experiments for eliciting preferences in the delivery of health care. Drawing upon the results from a recently completed systematic review, the paper summarises the application of this technique in health care. It then presents a case study applying the technique to rheumatology outpatient clinics. 200 patients were questioned about the importance of six attributes: staff seen (junior doctor or specialist nurse); time in waiting area; continuity of contact with same staff; provision of a phone-in/advice service; length of consultation; and change in pain levels. The systematic review indicated that discrete choice experiments have been applied to a wide number of areas and a number of methodological issues have been addressed. Consistent with this literature, the case study found evidence of both rationality and theoretical validity of responses. The approach was used to establish the relative importance of different attributes, how individuals trade between these attributes, and overall benefit scores for different clinic configurations. The value of attributes was estimated in terms of time, and this was converted to a monetary measure using the value of waiting time for public transport. Discrete choice experiments represent a potentially useful instrument for eliciting preferences. Future methodological work should explore issues related to the experimental design of the study, methods of data collection and analysis, and satisfaction with the economic axioms of the instrument. Collaborative work with psychologists and qualitative researchers will prove useful in this research agenda.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11533440      PMCID: PMC1765744          DOI: 10.1136/qhc.0100055..

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Qual Health Care        ISSN: 0963-8172


  6 in total

1.  Willingness to pay for improved respiratory and cardiovascular health: a multiple-format, stated-preference approach.

Authors:  F R Johnson; M R Banzhaf; W H Desvousges
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  2000-06       Impact factor: 3.046

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

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

Review 3.  Health care contingent valuation studies: a review and classification of the literature.

Authors:  A Diener; B O'Brien; A Gafni
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  1998-06       Impact factor: 3.046

4.  Using conjoint analysis to assess women's preferences for miscarriage management.

Authors:  M Ryan; J Hughes
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  1997 May-Jun       Impact factor: 3.046

5.  The expanding role of the nurse in rheumatology.

Authors:  J Hill
Journal:  Br J Rheumatol       Date:  1997-04

6.  An evaluation of the effectiveness, safety and acceptability of a nurse practitioner in a rheumatology outpatient clinic.

Authors:  J Hill; H A Bird; R Harmer; V Wright; C Lawton
Journal:  Br J Rheumatol       Date:  1994-03
  6 in total
  63 in total

Review 1.  How do patients' treatment preferences compare with those of clinicians?

Authors:  A A Montgomery; T Fahey
Journal:  Qual Health Care       Date:  2001-09

2.  Policy interventions that attract nurses to rural areas: a multicountry discrete choice experiment.

Authors:  D Blaauw; E Erasmus; N Pagaiya; V Tangcharoensathein; K Mullei; S Mudhune; C Goodman; M English; M Lagarde
Journal:  Bull World Health Organ       Date:  2010-05       Impact factor: 9.408

3.  A Discrete Choice Experiment to Elicit Patient Willingness to Pay for Attributes of Treatment-Induced Symptom Relief in Comorbid. Insomnia.

Authors:  Anuja N Roy; S Suresh Madhavan; Andrew Lloyd
Journal:  Manag Care       Date:  2015-04

4.  Things are Looking up Since We Started Listening to Patients: Trends in the Application of Conjoint Analysis in Health 1982-2007.

Authors:  John F P Bridges; Elizabeth T Kinter; Lillian Kidane; Rebekah R Heinzen; Colleen McCormick
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2008-12-01       Impact factor: 3.883

Review 5.  Conjoint analysis for environmental evaluation--a review of methods and applications.

Authors:  Stina Alriksson; Tomas Oberg
Journal:  Environ Sci Pollut Res Int       Date:  2008-05       Impact factor: 4.223

6.  Chronic pain patients' treatment preferences: a discrete-choice experiment.

Authors:  Axel C Mühlbacher; Uwe Junker; Christin Juhnke; Edgar Stemmler; Thomas Kohlmann; Friedhelm Leverkus; Matthias Nübling
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2014-06-21

7.  Evaluating a Decision Aid for Improving Decision Making in Patients with Early-stage Breast Cancer.

Authors:  Sarah T Hawley; Lisa Newman; Jennifer J Griggs; Mary Ann Kosir; Steven J Katz
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2016-04       Impact factor: 3.883

8.  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

9.  Using discrete choice modeling to evaluate the preferences and willingness to pay for leptospirosis vaccine.

Authors:  Joseph Arbiol; Mitsuyasu Yabe; Hisako Nomura; Maridel Borja; Nina Gloriani; Shin-ichi Yoshida
Journal:  Hum Vaccin Immunother       Date:  2015       Impact factor: 3.452

10.  Views of older people on cataract surgery options: an assessment of preferences by conjoint analysis.

Authors:  M-A Ross; A J Avery; A J E Foss
Journal:  Qual Saf Health Care       Date:  2003-02
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.