Warning: Undefined array key "mm" in /www/wwwroot/www.ai-bt.com/si.php on line 10 Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /www/wwwroot/www.ai-bt.com/si.php on line 10 Discrete choice experiments in health economics. For better or for worse?

Literature DB >> 15452734

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

Abstract

One method that is increasingly being used in health economics to elicit stated preferences concerning health matters is the discrete choice experiment (DCE). This editorial explores four sets of issues facing researchers who wish to employ DCE techniques: (a) normative issues about how data from DCE studies might be used to inform policy, (b) psychological issues concerning the meaningfulness of the data generated, (d) technical issues relating to how the data are generated and (d) issues relating to the generalisability of the data from DCE studies. Given current uncertainties surrounding these issues, it is our view that more caution and greater circumspection towards DCE is appropriate at this stage.

Entities: Chemical

Mesh：

Year: 2004 PMID： 15452734 DOI： 10.1007/s10198-004-0241-6

Source DB: PubMed Journal: Eur J Health Econ ISSN： 1618-7598

28 in total

1. Using discrete choice modelling in priority setting: an application to clinical service developments.

Authors: S Farrar; M Ryan; D Ross; A Ludbrook
Journal: Soc Sci Med Date: 2000-01 Impact factor: 4.634

2. How do general practitioners choose their practice? Preferences for practice and job characteristics.

Authors: T Gosden; I Bowler; M Sutton
Journal: J Health Serv Res Policy Date: 2000-10

3. Using conjoint analysis to take account of patient preferences and go beyond health outcomes: an application to in vitro fertilisation.

Authors: M Ryan
Journal: Soc Sci Med Date: 1999-02 Impact factor: 4.634

4. A role for conjoint analysis in technology assessment in health care?

Authors: M Ryan
Journal: Int J Technol Assess Health Care Date: 1999 Impact factor: 2.188

5. Preference measurement using conjoint methods: an empirical investigation of reliability.

Authors: S Bryan; L Gold; R Sheldon; M Buxton
Journal: Health Econ Date: 2000-07 Impact factor: 3.046

6. Investigating women's preferences for intrapartum care: home versus hospital births.

Authors: L Longworth; J Ratcliffe; M Boulton
Journal: Health Soc Care Community Date: 2001-11

7. 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

8. Symptom-based outcome measures for asthma: the use of discrete choice methods to assess patient preferences.

Authors: L McKenzie; J Cairns; L Osman
Journal: Health Policy Date: 2001-09 Impact factor: 2.980

9. Quantifying patient preferences for out-of-hours primary care.

Authors: A Morgan; P Shackley; M Pickin; J Brazier
Journal: J Health Serv Res Policy Date: 2000-10

10. Patients' preferences for the management of non-metastatic prostate cancer: discrete choice experiment.

Authors: Mark Sculpher; Stirling Bryan; Pat Fry; Patricia de Winter; Heather Payne; Mark Emberton
Journal: BMJ Date: 2004-01-29

24 in total

1. Measuring Preferences for Colorectal Cancer Screening: What are the Implications for Moving Forward?

Authors: Deborah Marshall; S Elizabeth McGregor; Gillian Currie
Journal: Patient Date: 2010-06-01 Impact factor: 3.883

2. Understanding patients' values and preferences regarding early stage lung cancer treatment decision making.

Authors: Donald R Sullivan; Karen B Eden; Nathan F Dieckmann; Sara E Golden; Kelly C Vranas; Shannon M Nugent; Christopher G Slatore
Journal: Lung Cancer Date: 2019-03-09 Impact factor: 5.705

3. A comparison of analytic hierarchy process and conjoint analysis methods in assessing treatment alternatives for stroke rehabilitation.

Authors: Maarten J Ijzerman; Janine A van Til; John F P Bridges
Journal: Patient Date: 2012 Impact factor: 3.883

Review 4. Acknowledging patient heterogeneity in economic evaluation : a systematic literature review.

Authors: Janneke P C Grutters; Mark Sculpher; Andrew H Briggs; Johan L Severens; Math J Candel; James E Stahl; Dirk De Ruysscher; Albert Boer; Bram L T Ramaekers; Manuela A Joore
Journal: Pharmacoeconomics Date: 2013-02 Impact factor: 4.981

5. 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

6. Patients' willingness-to-pay for an Alzheimer's disease medication in Canada.

Authors: Mark Oremus; Jean-Eric Tarride; Eleanor Pullenayegum; Natasha Clayton; Parminder Raina
Journal: Patient Date: 2013 Impact factor: 3.883

7. 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

Review 8. Measuring health preferences for use in cost-utility and cost-benefit analyses of interventions in children: theoretical and methodological considerations.

Authors: Lisa A Prosser; James K Hammitt; Ron Keren
Journal: Pharmacoeconomics Date: 2007 Impact factor: 4.981

9. How Do Members of the Duchenne and Becker Muscular Dystrophy Community Perceive a Discrete-Choice Experiment Incorporating Uncertain Treatment Benefit? An Application of Research as an Event.

Authors: John F P Bridges; Jui-Hua Tsai; Ellen Janssen; Norah L Crossnohere; Ryan Fischer; Holly Peay
Journal: Patient Date: 2019-04 Impact factor: 3.883

Review 10. Welfarism versus extra-welfarism: can the choice of economic evaluation approach impact on the adoption decisions recommended by economic evaluation studies?

Authors: James Buchanan; Sarah Wordsworth
Journal: Pharmacoeconomics Date: 2015-06 Impact factor: 4.981