Literature DB >> 25005924

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

Michael D Clark1, Domino Determann, Stavros Petrou, Domenico Moro, Esther W de Bekker-Grob.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) are increasingly used in health economics to address a wide range of health policy-related concerns.
OBJECTIVE: Broadly adopting the methodology of an earlier systematic review of health-related DCEs, which covered the period 2001-2008, we report whether earlier trends continued during 2009-2012.
METHODS: This paper systematically reviews health-related DCEs published between 2009 and 2012, using the same database as the earlier published review (PubMed) to obtain citations, and the same range of search terms.
RESULTS: A total of 179 health-related DCEs for 2009-2012 met the inclusion criteria for the review. We found a continuing trend towards conducting DCEs across a broader range of countries. However, the trend towards including fewer attributes was reversed, whilst the trend towards interview-based DCEs reversed because of increased computer administration. The trend towards using more flexible econometric models, including mixed logit and latent class, has also continued. Reporting of monetary values has fallen compared with earlier periods, but the proportion of studies estimating trade-offs between health outcomes and experience factors, or valuing outcomes in terms of utility scores, has increased, although use of odds ratios and probabilities has declined. The reassuring trend towards the use of more flexible and appropriate DCE designs and econometric methods has been reinforced by the increased use of qualitative methods to inform DCE processes and results. However, qualitative research methods are being used less often to inform attribute selection, which may make DCEs more susceptible to omitted variable bias if the decision framework is not known prior to the research project.
CONCLUSIONS: The use of DCEs in healthcare continues to grow dramatically, as does the scope of applications across an expanding range of countries. There is increasing evidence that more sophisticated approaches to DCE design and analytical techniques are improving the quality of final outputs. That said, recent evidence that the use of qualitative methods to inform attribute selection has declined is of concern.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25005924     DOI: 10.1007/s40273-014-0170-x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics        ISSN: 1170-7690            Impact factor:   4.981


  224 in total

1.  Conjoint analysis. The cost variable: an Achilles' heel?

Authors:  Ulla Slothuus Skjoldborg; Dorte Gyrd-Hansen
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  2003-06       Impact factor: 3.046

2.  Conjoint Analysis Applications in Health - How are Studies being Designed and Reported?: An Update on Current Practice in the Published Literature between 2005 and 2008.

Authors:  Deborah Marshall; John F P Bridges; Brett Hauber; Ruthanne Cameron; Lauren Donnalley; Ken Fyie; F Reed Johnson
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2010-12-01       Impact factor: 3.883

3.  Policy interventions that attract nurses to rural areas: a multicountry discrete choice experiment.

Authors:  D Blaauw; E Erasmus; N Pagaiya; V Tangcharoensathein; K Mullei; S Mudhune; C Goodman; M English; M Lagarde
Journal:  Bull World Health Organ       Date:  2010-05       Impact factor: 9.408

4.  Patient and parent preferences for haemophilia A treatments.

Authors:  A F Mohamed; J D Epstein; J M Li-McLeod
Journal:  Haemophilia       Date:  2010-11-11       Impact factor: 4.287

5.  Think twice before you book? Modelling the choice of public vs private dentist in a choice experiment.

Authors:  Urpo Kiiskinen; Anna Liisa Suominen-Taipale; John Cairns
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  2010-06       Impact factor: 3.046

6.  Comparing welfare estimates from payment card contingent valuation and discrete choice experiments.

Authors:  Mandy Ryan; Verity Watson
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  2009-04       Impact factor: 3.046

7.  Public and decision maker stated preferences for pharmaceutical subsidy decisions: a pilot study.

Authors:  Jennifer A Whitty; Paul A Scuffham; Sharyn R Rundle-Thiele
Journal:  Appl Health Econ Health Policy       Date:  2011-03-01       Impact factor: 2.561

8.  Conjoint Analysis at the Individual Patient Level: Issues to Consider as We Move from a Research to a Clinical Tool.

Authors:  Liana Fraenkel
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2008-10-01       Impact factor: 3.883

9.  Informed choice and the widespread use of antiinflammatory drugs.

Authors:  Liana Fraenkel; Dick R Wittink; John Concato; Terri Fried
Journal:  Arthritis Rheum       Date:  2004-04-15

10.  Using stated preference modeling to forecast the effect of medication attributes on prescriptions of alcoholism medications.

Authors:  Tami L Mark; Joffre Swait
Journal:  Value Health       Date:  2003 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 5.725

View more
  216 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.  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

3.  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

4.  Development of a Discrete Choice Experiment (DCE) Questionnaire to Understand Veterans' Preferences for Tobacco Treatment in Primary Care.

Authors:  David A Katz; Kenda R Stewart; Monica Paez; Mark W Vander Weg; Kathleen M Grant; Christine Hamlin; Gary Gaeth
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2018-12       Impact factor: 3.883

5.  How important is social support in determining patients' suitability for transplantation? Results from a National Survey of Transplant Clinicians.

Authors:  Keren Ladin; Joanna Emerson; Zeeshan Butt; Elisa J Gordon; Douglas W Hanto; Jennifer Perloff; Norman Daniels; Tara A Lavelle
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  2018-06-28       Impact factor: 2.903

6.  Benefit-Risk or Risk-Benefit Trade-Offs? Another Look at Attribute Ordering Effects in a Pilot Choice Experiment.

Authors:  Sebastian Heidenreich; Andrea Phillips-Beyer; Bruno Flamion; Melissa Ross; Jaein Seo; Kevin Marsh
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2020-11-11       Impact factor: 3.883

7.  Mobilising the Next Generation of Stated-Preference Studies: the Association of Access Device with Choice Behaviour and Data Quality.

Authors:  Caroline M Vass; Marco Boeri
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2020-12-23       Impact factor: 3.883

8.  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

9.  Patients' preferences for osteoarthritis treatment: the value of stated-preference studies.

Authors:  Mickael Hiligsmann; Daniel Pinto; Elaine Dennison; Nasser Al-Daghri; Charlotte Beaudart; Jaime Branco; Olivier Bruyère; Philip G Conaghan; Cyrus Cooper; Gabriel Herrero-Beaumont; Famida Jiwa; Willem Lems; Rene Rizzoli; Thierry Thomas; Nicola Veronese; Jean-Yves Reginster
Journal:  Aging Clin Exp Res       Date:  2019-01-04       Impact factor: 3.636

10.  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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.