Literature DB >> 22223558

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

Esther W de Bekker-Grob1, Mandy Ryan, Karen Gerard.   

Abstract

Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) have become a commonly used instrument in health economics. This paper updates a review of published papers between 1990 and 2000 for the years 2001-2008. Based on this previous review, and a number of other key review papers, focus is given to three issues: experimental design; estimation procedures; and validity of responses. Consideration is also given to how DCEs are applied and reported. We identified 114 DCEs, covering a wide range of policy questions. Applications took place in a broader range of health-care systems, and there has been a move to incorporating fewer attributes, more choices and interview-based surveys. There has also been a shift towards statistically more efficient designs and flexible econometric models. The reporting of monetary values continues to be popular, the use of utility scores has not gained popularity, and there has been an increasing use of odds ratios and probabilities. The latter are likely to be useful at the policy level to investigate take-up and acceptability of new interventions. Incorporation of interactions terms in the design and analysis of DCEs, explanations of risk, tests of external validity and incorporation of DCE results into a decision-making framework remain important areas for future research.
Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 22223558     DOI: 10.1002/hec.1697

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


  363 in total

Review 1.  Discrete choice experiments of pharmacy services: a systematic review.

Authors:  Caroline Vass; Ewan Gray; Katherine Payne
Journal:  Int J Clin Pharm       Date:  2016-06

2.  Physician preferences for bone metastasis drug therapy in Canada.

Authors:  J Arellano; J M González; Y Qian; M Habib; A F Mohamed; F Gatta; A B Hauber; J Posner; N Califaretti; E Chow
Journal:  Curr Oncol       Date:  2015-10       Impact factor: 3.677

3.  Critical limb ischemia and its impact on patient health preferences and quality of life-an international study.

Authors:  Giovanni Pisa; Thomas Reinhold; Eliot Obi-Tabot; Maria Bodoria; Bernd Brüggenjürgen
Journal:  Int J Angiol       Date:  2012-09

4.  Focus Groups in Elderly Ophthalmologic Patients: Setting the Stage for Quantitative Preference Elicitation.

Authors:  Marion Danner; Vera Vennedey; Mickaël Hiligsmann; Sascha Fauser; Stephanie Stock
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2016-02       Impact factor: 3.883

5.  A Systematic Review of Discrete-Choice Experiments and Conjoint Analysis Studies in People with Multiple Sclerosis.

Authors:  Edward J D Webb; David Meads; Ieva Eskyte; Natalie King; Naila Dracup; Jeremy Chataway; Helen L Ford; Joachim Marti; Sue H Pavitt; Klaus Schmierer; Ana Manzano
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2018-08       Impact factor: 3.883

6.  How Do Older Adults Consider Age, Life Expectancy, Quality of Life, and Physician Recommendations When Making Cancer Screening Decisions? Results from a National Survey Using a Discrete Choice Experiment.

Authors:  Ellen M Janssen; Craig E Pollack; Cynthia Boyd; John F P Bridges; Qian-Li Xue; Antonio C Wolff; Nancy L Schoenborn
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2019-06-21       Impact factor: 2.583

7.  Valuing benefits to inform a clinical trial in pharmacy : do differences in utility measures at baseline affect the effectiveness of the intervention?

Authors:  Michela Tinelli; Mandy Ryan; Christine Bond; Anthony Scott
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2013-02       Impact factor: 4.981

8.  Stated Uptake of Physical Activity Rewards Programmes Among Active and Insufficiently Active Full-Time Employees.

Authors:  Semra Ozdemir; Marcel Bilger; Eric A Finkelstein
Journal:  Appl Health Econ Health Policy       Date:  2017-10       Impact factor: 2.561

9.  Patient Preferences for Bariatric Surgery: Findings From a Survey Using Discrete Choice Experiment Methodology.

Authors:  Michael D Rozier; Amir A Ghaferi; Angela Rose; Norma-Jean Simon; Nancy Birkmeyer; Lisa A Prosser
Journal:  JAMA Surg       Date:  2019-01-16       Impact factor: 14.766

10.  Patient preferences in advanced or recurrent ovarian cancer.

Authors:  Laura J Havrilesky; Angeles Alvarez Secord; Jessie A Ehrisman; Andrew Berchuck; Fidel A Valea; Paula S Lee; Stephanie L Gaillard; Greg P Samsa; David Cella; Kevin P Weinfurt; Amy P Abernethy; Shelby D Reed
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2014-08-04       Impact factor: 6.860

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.