Literature DB >> 25209857

Improving the Validity of Stated-Preference Data in Health Research: The Potential of the Time-to-Think Approach.

Semra Ozdemir1.   

Abstract

The objective of this article was to discuss potential benefits and drawbacks of using a time-to-think (TTT) approach in healthcare research. Implementing a TTT approach in a stated-preference survey study gives respondents the opportunity to reflect on their options before answering preference-elicitation questions. This article offers an evaluation of circumstances that are suited for implementing this approach, and highlights several remaining questions and problems that should be explored in future research.

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25209857     DOI: 10.1007/s40271-014-0084-x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Patient        ISSN: 1178-1653            Impact factor:   3.883


  12 in total

1.  Chinese seniors' perspectives on end-of-life decisions.

Authors:  K W Bowman; P A Singer
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  2001-08       Impact factor: 4.634

Review 2.  Estimating the monetary value of health care: lessons from environmental economics.

Authors:  Nick Hanley; Mandy Ryan; Robert Wright
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  2003-01       Impact factor: 3.046

3.  Are gastroenterologists less tolerant of treatment risks than patients? Benefit-risk preferences in Crohn's disease management.

Authors:  F Reed Johnson; Brett Hauber; Semra Özdemir; Corey A Siegel; Steven Hass; Bruce E Sands
Journal:  J Manag Care Pharm       Date:  2010-10

4.  Private demand for cholera vaccines in Beira, Mozambique.

Authors:  Marcelino E S Lucas; Marc Jeuland; Jacqueline Deen; Nivalda Lazaro; Melissa MacMahon; Andrew Nyamete; Avertino Barreto; Lorenz von Seidlein; Arnaldo Cumbane; Francisco F Songane; Dale Whittington
Journal:  Vaccine       Date:  2006-12-21       Impact factor: 3.641

5.  Discrete choice experiments to measure consumer preferences for health and healthcare.

Authors:  Rosalie Viney; Emily Lancsar; Jordan Louviere
Journal:  Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res       Date:  2002-08       Impact factor: 2.217

Review 6.  Health care contingent valuation studies: a review and classification of the literature.

Authors:  A Diener; B O'Brien; A Gafni
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  1998-06       Impact factor: 3.046

7.  Private demand for cholera vaccines in rural Matlab, Bangladesh.

Authors:  Ziaul Islam; Brian Maskery; Andrew Nyamete; Mark S Horowitz; Mohammad Yunus; Dale Whittington
Journal:  Health Policy       Date:  2007-09-05       Impact factor: 2.980

8.  Conducting discrete choice experiments to inform healthcare decision making: a user's guide.

Authors:  Emily Lancsar; Jordan Louviere
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 4.981

9.  Household demand for preventive HIV/AIDS vaccines in Thailand: do husbands' and wives' preferences differ?

Authors:  Dale Whittington; Chutima Suraratdecha; Christine Poulos; Martha Ainsworth; Vimalanand Prabhu; Viroj Tangcharoensathien
Journal:  Value Health       Date:  2008-01-08       Impact factor: 5.725

10.  Hypothetical bias, cheap talk, and stated willingness to pay for health care.

Authors:  Semra Ozdemir; F Reed Johnson; A Brett Hauber
Journal:  J Health Econ       Date:  2009-04-18       Impact factor: 3.883

View more
  3 in total

Review 1.  Opening the 'Black Box': An Overview of Methods to Investigate the Decision-Making Process in Choice-Based Surveys.

Authors:  Dan Rigby; Caroline Vass; Katherine Payne
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2020-02       Impact factor: 3.883

2.  How Simple Hypothetical-Choice Experiments Can Be Utilized to Learn Humans' Navigational Escape Decisions in Emergencies.

Authors:  Milad Haghani; Majid Sarvi; Zahra Shahhoseini; Maik Boltes
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-11-21       Impact factor: 3.240

3.  A Picture is Worth a Thousand Words: The Role of Survey Training Materials in Stated-Preference Studies.

Authors:  Caroline M Vass; Niall J Davison; Geert Vander Stichele; Katherine Payne
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2020-04       Impact factor: 3.883

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.