Literature DB >> 15119540

Stated preference methods in health care evaluation: an emerging methodological paradigm in health economics.

John F P Bridges1.   

Abstract

One focus of health economics is the trade-off between limited resources and the (health) needs of a community. Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA), while being one of the most accepted evaluation methodologies in health economics, does not account for many important costs and benefits of health care interventions. Some health economists have attempted to modify CEA to account for these deficiencies, while others have been working on alternative methodologies. One group of alternative methodologies can be described as stated preference techniques. These aim to measure both health and non-health outcomes (ie costs and benefits), and include qualitative analysis, conjoint analysis (often referred to as discrete choice analysis/modelling) and willingness to pay (or contingent valuation). This paper provides an overview of stated preference techniques in health economics, with particular focus on their strengths as compared with traditional evaluation methods in health care. The limitations and policy implications of these methods are also discussed.

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 15119540

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Appl Health Econ Health Policy        ISSN: 1175-5652            Impact factor:   2.561


  67 in total

1.  Conjoint Analysis Applications in Health - How are Studies being Designed and Reported?: An Update on Current Practice in the Published Literature between 2005 and 2008.

Authors:  Deborah Marshall; John F P Bridges; Brett Hauber; Ruthanne Cameron; Lauren Donnalley; Ken Fyie; F Reed Johnson
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2010-12-01       Impact factor: 3.883

2.  Consumer preferences for hearing aid attributes: a comparison of rating and conjoint analysis methods.

Authors:  John F P Bridges; Angela T Lataille; Christine Buttorff; Sharon White; John K Niparko
Journal:  Trends Amplif       Date:  2012-04-17

3.  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

4.  Using conjoint analysis to model the preferences of different patient segments for attributes of patient-centered care.

Authors:  Charles E Cunningham; Ken Deal; Heather Rimas; Heather Campbell; Ann Russell; Jennifer Henderson; Anne Matheson; Blake Melnick
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2008-12-01       Impact factor: 3.883

5.  Patients' Preferences for Generic and Branded Over-the-Counter Medicines: An Adaptive Conjoint Analysis Approach.

Authors:  Merja Halme; Kari Linden; Kimmo Kääriä
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2009-12-01       Impact factor: 3.883

6.  Identifying and Prioritizing the Barriers and Facilitators to the Self-Management of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Community-Centered Approach.

Authors:  Allison H Oakes; Vincent S Garmo; Lee R Bone; Daniel R Longo; Jodi B Segal; John F P Bridges
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2017-12       Impact factor: 3.883

7.  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

8.  Using the analytic hierarchy process to elicit patient preferences: prioritizing multiple outcome measures of antidepressant drug treatment.

Authors:  Marjan J M Hummel; Fabian Volz; Jeannette G van Manen; Marion Danner; Charalabos-Markos Dintsios; Maarten J Ijzerman; Andreas Gerber
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2012       Impact factor: 3.883

9.  Valuations of genetic test information for treatable conditions: the case of colorectal cancer screening.

Authors:  Vikram Kilambi; F Reed Johnson; Juan Marcos González; Ateesha F Mohamed
Journal:  Value Health       Date:  2014-11-06       Impact factor: 5.725

Review 10.  Decision making about cancer screening: an assessment of the state of the science and a suggested research agenda from the ASPO Behavioral Oncology and Cancer Communication Special Interest Group.

Authors:  Marc T Kiviniemi; Jennifer L Hay; Aimee S James; Isaac M Lipkus; Helen I Meissner; Michael Stefanek; Jamie L Studts; John F P Bridges; David R Close; Deborah O Erwin; Resa M Jones; Karen Kaiser; Kathryn M Kash; Kimberly M Kelly; Simon J Craddock Lee; Jason Q Purnell; Laura A Siminoff; Susan T Vadaparampil; Catharine Wang
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2009-11       Impact factor: 4.254

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.