Literature DB >> 23351426

The effect of adverse information and positive promotion on women's preferences for prescribed contraceptive products.

Stephanie A Knox1, Rosalie C Viney, Yuanyuan Gu, Arne R Hole, Denzil G Fiebig, Deborah J Street, Marion R Haas, Edith Weisberg, Deborah Bateson.   

Abstract

Recent rapid growth in the range of contraceptive products has given women more choice, but also adds complexity to the resultant decision of which product to choose. This paper uses a discrete choice experiment (DCE) to investigate the effect of adverse information and positive promotion on women's stated preferences for prescribed contraceptive products. In November 2007, 527 Australian women aged 18-49 years were recruited from an online panel. Each was randomly allocated to one of three information conditions. The control group only received basic information on contraceptive products. One treatment group also received adverse information on the risks of the combined oral pill. The other group received basic information and promotional material on the vaginal ring, newly introduced into Australia and on the transdermal patch, which is unavailable in Australia. Respondents completed 32 choice sets with 3 product options where each option was described by a product label: either combined pill, minipill, injection, implant, hormonal IUD, hormonal vaginal ring, hormonal transdermal patch or copper IUD; and by the attributes: effect on acne, effect on weight, frequency of administration, contraceptive effectiveness, doctor's recommendation, effect on periods and cost. Women's choices were analysed using a generalized multinomial logit model (G-MNL) and model estimates were used to predict product shares for each information condition. The predictions indicated that adverse information did not affect women's preferences for products relative to only receiving basic information. The promotional material increased women's preferences for the transdermal patch. Women in all groups had a low preference for the vaginal ring which was not improved by promotion. The findings highlight the need for researchers to pay attention to setting the context when conducting DCEs as this can significantly affect results.
Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23351426     DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2012.12.025

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Soc Sci Med        ISSN: 0277-9536            Impact factor:   4.634


  8 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

2.  Accounting for Scale Heterogeneity in Healthcare-Related Discrete Choice Experiments when Comparing Stated Preferences: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Stuart J Wright; Caroline M Vass; Gene Sim; Michael Burton; Denzil G Fiebig; Katherine Payne
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2018-10       Impact factor: 3.883

3.  A qualitative analysis of approaches to contraceptive counseling.

Authors:  Christine Dehlendorf; Katrina Kimport; Kira Levy; Jody Steinauer
Journal:  Perspect Sex Reprod Health       Date:  2014-07-10

4.  Preference Elicitation Techniques Used in Valuing Children's Health-Related Quality-of-Life: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Cate Bailey; Martin Howell; Kirsten Howard; Rosalie Viney; Rakhee Raghunandan; Amber Salisbury; Gang Chen; Joanna Coast; Jonathan C Craig; Nancy J Devlin; Elisabeth Huynh; Emily Lancsar; Brendan J Mulhern; Richard Norman; Stavros Petrou; Julie Ratcliffe; Deborah J Street
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2022-05-27       Impact factor: 4.558

5.  Improving outpatient satisfaction by extending expected waiting time.

Authors:  Wei-Min Ma; Hui Zhang; Neng-Li Wang
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2019-08-13       Impact factor: 2.655

6.  Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: Past, Present and Future.

Authors:  Vikas Soekhai; Esther W de Bekker-Grob; Alan R Ellis; Caroline M Vass
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2019-02       Impact factor: 4.981

7.  Heterogeneous HIV testing preferences in an urban setting in Tanzania: results from a discrete choice experiment.

Authors:  Jan Ostermann; Bernard Njau; Derek S Brown; Axel Mühlbacher; Nathan Thielman
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-03-18       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Women's Preferences for Treatment of Perinatal Depression and Anxiety: A Discrete Choice Experiment.

Authors:  Jemimah Ride; Emily Lancsar
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-06-03       Impact factor: 3.240

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.