Literature DB >> 12720256

Threats to the estimation of benefit: are preference elicitation methods accurate?

Andrew J Lloyd1.   

Abstract

Stated preference methods are used to estimate the value that people place on health care. The data that emerges from these studies is used to guide health policy. However, relatively little is known about how individuals make decisions in a preference elicitation task. Two methods (willingness to pay and conjoint analysis) are considered within the context of the literature from psychology (and also environmental economics) regarding how people construct preferences, process information, and make decisions. There is substantial evidence that individuals employ heuristics (cognitive shortcuts) in order to simplify tasks they are presented with. The use of heuristics implies that people ignore much of the information they are presented with and make decisions which would not be considered rational in the economic sense. These stated preference methods assume that individuals trade between the different attributes of a good or service when making decisions - an assumption that other theories predict is wrong. The implications of this are discussed. Copyright 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12720256     DOI: 10.1002/hec.772

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


  21 in total

1.  What do hospital consultants value about their jobs? A discrete choice experiment.

Authors:  Cristina Ubach; Anthony Scott; Fiona French; Morag Awramenko; Gillian Needham
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2003-06-28

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

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

3.  Validity and Reliability of Willingness-to-Pay Estimates: Evidence from Two Overlapping Discrete-Choice Experiments.

Authors:  Harry Telser; Karolin Becker; Peter Zweifel
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2008-12-01       Impact factor: 3.883

4.  Andrew lloyd: a driving force in patient-centered outcomes research.

Authors:  John F P Bridges; Christopher I Carswell
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2008-12-01       Impact factor: 3.883

5.  Willingness-to-pay and demand curves: a comparison of results obtained using different elicitation formats.

Authors:  David K Whynes; Emma J Frew; Jane L Wolstenholme
Journal:  Int J Health Care Finance Econ       Date:  2005-12

6.  Eliciting preferences for prioritizing treatment of rare diseases: the role of opportunity costs and framing effects.

Authors:  Arna S Desser; Jan Abel Olsen; Sverre Grepperud
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2013-11       Impact factor: 4.981

7.  Development of a Discrete Choice Experiment (DCE) Questionnaire to Understand Veterans' Preferences for Tobacco Treatment in Primary Care.

Authors:  David A Katz; Kenda R Stewart; Monica Paez; Mark W Vander Weg; Kathleen M Grant; Christine Hamlin; Gary Gaeth
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2018-12       Impact factor: 3.883

8.  Preferences of community pharmacists for extended roles in primary care: a survey and discrete choice experiment.

Authors:  Anthony Scott; Christine Bond; Jackie Inch; Aileen Grant
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2007       Impact factor: 4.981

9.  Putting a value on the avoidance of false positive results when screening for inherited metabolic disease in the newborn.

Authors:  Simon Dixon; Phil Shackley; Jim Bonham; Rachel Ibbotson
Journal:  J Inherit Metab Dis       Date:  2011-05-27       Impact factor: 4.982

10.  A review of the application and contribution of discrete choice experiments to inform human resources policy interventions.

Authors:  Mylene Lagarde; Duane Blaauw
Journal:  Hum Resour Health       Date:  2009-07-24
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.