Literature DB >> 12112494

Using stated preference discrete choice modelling to evaluate the introduction of varicella vaccination.

Jane Hall1, Patricia Kenny, Madeleine King, Jordan Louviere, Rosalie Viney, Angela Yeoh.   

Abstract

Applications of stated preference discrete choice modelling (SPDCM) in health economics have been used to estimate consumer willingness to pay and to broaden the range of consequences considered in economic evaluation. This paper demonstrates how SPDCM can be used to predict participation rates, using the case of varicella (chickenpox) vaccination. Varicella vaccination may be cost effective compared to other public health programs, but this conclusion is sensitive to the proportion of the target population immunised. A choice experiment was conducted on a sample of Australian parents to predict uptake across a range of hypothetical programs. Immunisation rates would be increased by providing immunisation at no cost, by requiring it for school entry, by increasing immunisation rates in the community and decreasing the incidence of mild and severe side effects. There were two significant interactions; price modified the effect of both support from authorities and severe side effects. Country of birth was the only significant demographic characteristic. Depending on aspects of the immunisation program, the immunisation rates of children with Australian-born parents varied from 9% to 99% while for the children with parents born outside Australia they varied from 40% to 99%. This demonstrates how SPDCM can be used to understand the levels of attributes that will induce a change in the decision to immunise, the modification of the effect of one attribute by another, and subgroups in the population. Such insights can contribute to the optimal design and targeting of health programs. Copyright 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12112494     DOI: 10.1002/hec.694

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


  43 in total

1.  Discrete choice experiment of smoking cessation behaviour in Japan.

Authors:  Rei Goto; Shuzo Nishimura; Takanori Ida
Journal:  Tob Control       Date:  2007-10       Impact factor: 7.552

2.  Promoting HIV Testing by Men: A Discrete Choice Experiment to Elicit Preferences and Predict Uptake of Community-based Testing in Uganda.

Authors:  Elisabeth M Schaffer; Juan Marcos Gonzalez; Stephanie B Wheeler; Dalsone Kwarisiima; Gabriel Chamie; Harsha Thirumurthy
Journal:  Appl Health Econ Health Policy       Date:  2020-06       Impact factor: 2.561

3.  A closer look at decision and analyst error by including nonlinearities in discrete choice models: implications on willingness-to-pay estimates derived from discrete choice data in healthcare.

Authors:  Esther W de Bekker-Grob; John M Rose; Michiel C J Bliemer
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2013-12       Impact factor: 4.981

4.  Assessing preferences for improved smoking cessation medications: a discrete choice experiment.

Authors:  Joachim Marti
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2011-06-26

Review 5.  Risk as an attribute in discrete choice experiments: a systematic review of the literature.

Authors:  Mark Harrison; Dan Rigby; Caroline Vass; Terry Flynn; Jordan Louviere; Katherine Payne
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2014       Impact factor: 3.883

Review 6.  Reconceptualising the external validity of discrete choice experiments.

Authors:  Emily Lancsar; Joffre Swait
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2014-10       Impact factor: 4.981

7.  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

8.  Patient preferences and National Health Service costs: a cost-consequences analysis of cancer genetic services.

Authors:  Gethin L Griffith; Rhiannon Tudor Edwards; J Mark G Williams; Jonathon Gray; Val Morrison; Clare Wilkinson; Jim Turner; Barbara France; Paul Bennett
Journal:  Fam Cancer       Date:  2008-09-27       Impact factor: 2.375

9.  Preferences for colorectal cancer screening strategies: a discrete choice experiment.

Authors:  L Hol; E W de Bekker-Grob; L van Dam; B Donkers; E J Kuipers; J D F Habbema; E W Steyerberg; M E van Leerdam; M L Essink-Bot
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2010-03-02       Impact factor: 7.640

10.  Conducting discrete choice experiments to inform healthcare decision making: a user's guide.

Authors:  Emily Lancsar; Jordan Louviere
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 4.981

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.