Literature DB >> 21809412

Preferences for new and existing contraceptive products.

Denzil G Fiebig1, Stephanie Knox, Rosalie Viney, Marion Haas, Deborah J Street.   

Abstract

New contraceptive methods provide greater choice in terms of effectiveness, management of side-effects, convenience and frequency of administration and flexibility, but make the decisions about contraception more complex. There are limited data on the factors that determine women's choices among these alternatives, to inform providers about the factors which are most important to women, or to predict uptake of new products. This paper reports on a choice experiment designed to elicit women's preferences in relation to prescribed contraception and to forecast the impact of the introduction of two new products into the Australian market. A generalised multinomial logit model is estimated and used in the simulation exercise. The model forecasts that the hormonal patch would be well received among women, achieving a greater market share than current non-pill products, but the vaginal ring would have limited appeal.
Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2010        PMID: 21809412     DOI: 10.1002/hec.1686

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


  15 in total

1.  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

Review 2.  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

3.  Discrete Choice Experiments: A Guide to Model Specification, Estimation and Software.

Authors:  Emily Lancsar; Denzil G Fiebig; Arne Risa Hole
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2017-07       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 4.  Valuing Meta-Health Effects for Use in Economic Evaluations to Inform Reimbursement Decisions: A Review of the Evidence.

Authors:  Richard De Abreu Lourenco; Marion Haas; Jane Hall; Rosalie Viney
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2017-03       Impact factor: 4.981

5.  Junior doctors' medical specialty and practice location choice: simulating policies to overcome regional inequalities.

Authors:  Pedro Ramos; Hélio Alves; Paulo Guimarães; Maria A Ferreira
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2016-11-03

6.  Big Data: Will It Improve Patient-Centered Care?

Authors:  Denzil G Fiebig
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2017-04       Impact factor: 3.883

7.  Stubbing out hypothetical bias: improving tobacco market predictions by combining stated and revealed preference data.

Authors:  John Buckell; Stephane Hess
Journal:  J Health Econ       Date:  2019-04-02       Impact factor: 3.883

8.  What's good and bad about contraceptive products?: a best-worst attribute experiment comparing the values of women consumers and GPs.

Authors:  Stephanie A Knox; Rosalie C Viney; Deborah J Street; Marion R Haas; Denzil G Fiebig; Edith Weisberg; Deborah Bateson
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2012-12-01       Impact factor: 4.981

9.  How well do discrete choice experiments predict health choices? A systematic review and meta-analysis of external validity.

Authors:  Matthew Quaife; Fern Terris-Prestholt; Gian Luca Di Tanna; Peter Vickerman
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2018-01-29

10.  Using blocked fractional factorial designs to construct discrete choice experiments for healthcare studies.

Authors:  Jessica Jaynes; Weng-Kee Wong; Hongquan Xu
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2016-01-28       Impact factor: 2.373

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.