Literature DB >> 20799343

Using discrete choice experiments to value informal care tasks: exploring preference heterogeneity.

Emmanouil Mentzakis1, Mandy Ryan, Paul McNamee.   

Abstract

While informal care is a significant part of non-market economic activity, its value is rarely acknowledged, perhaps reflecting a lack of market data. Traditional methods to value such care include opportunity and replacement cost. This study is the first to employ the discrete choice experiment methodology to value informal care tasks. A monetary value is estimated for three tasks (personal care, supervising and household tasks). The relationship between time spent on formal and informal care is also modelled and preference heterogeneity investigated using the Latent Class Model. Complementarity between supervising tasks and formal care is observed. Monetary compensation is important, with willingness to accept per hour values ranging from £0.38 to £0.83 for personal care, £0.75 for supervising and £0.31 to £0.6 for household tasks. Heterogeneity in preferences is observed, with monetary compensation being important for younger people, but insignificant for older individuals. Such heterogeneity is important at the policy level. Values are lower than those generated by opportunity cost and replacement cost methods, perhaps because of the limited ability of revealed preference methods to capture broader aspect of utility. Differences with contingent valuation methods are also observed, suggesting future research should investigate the external validity of the different methods.
Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20799343     DOI: 10.1002/hec.1656

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


  19 in total

1.  How to include informal care in economic evaluations.

Authors:  Renske J Hoefman; Job van Exel; Werner Brouwer
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2013-12       Impact factor: 4.981

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

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

3.  Redistribution through social health insurance: evidence on citizen preferences.

Authors:  Christian Pfarr; Andreas Schmid
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2015-07-02

4.  The Monetary Value of Informal Care: Obtaining Pure Time Valuations Using a Discrete Choice Experiment.

Authors:  Renske J Hoefman; Job van Exel; Werner B F Brouwer
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2019-04       Impact factor: 4.981

5.  Using Discrete-Choice Experiment Methods to Estimate the Value of Informal Care: The Case of Children with Intellectual Disability.

Authors:  Sheena Arora; Stephen Goodall; Rosalie Viney; Stewart Einfeld
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2019-04       Impact factor: 4.981

6.  Using Latent Class Analysis to Model Preference Heterogeneity in Health: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Mo Zhou; Winter Maxwell Thayer; John F P Bridges
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2018-02       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 7.  The Valuation of Informal Care in Cost-of-Illness Studies: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Juan Oliva-Moreno; Marta Trapero-Bertran; Luz Maria Peña-Longobardo; Raúl Del Pozo-Rubio
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2017-03       Impact factor: 4.981

8.  Patient preferences for community pharmacy asthma services: a discrete choice experiment.

Authors:  Pradnya Naik-Panvelkar; Carol Armour; John M Rose; Bandana Saini
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2012-10-01       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 9.  Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature.

Authors:  Michael D Clark; Domino Determann; Stavros Petrou; Domenico Moro; Esther W de Bekker-Grob
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2014-09       Impact factor: 4.981

10.  Depressive symptoms and posttraumatic stress disorder as determinants of preference weights for attributes of obstetric care among Ethiopian women.

Authors:  Magdalena M Paczkowski; Margaret E Kruk; Fasil Tessema; Ayalew Tegegn; Sandro Galea
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-10-10       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.