Literature DB >> 6867787

Modeling consumer choices of health plans: a comparison of two techniques.

M D Rosko, W McKenna.   

Abstract

This paper has two objectives. First, we will describe how conjoint measurement, a multivariate marketing research technique, can be applied in health care marketing. Second, we will compare the validity of results from two conjoint measurement techniques--the full profile approach and the tradeoff approach. A convenience sample of 97 university students was used in the study. Fifty-two students supplied data by using the full profile approach. Each respondent provided a complete rank order of 26 profile cards which included the following ambulatory health service attributes: charge for routine visit, travel time, office hours, length of time needed to make an appointment, waiting time in physician's office, practice arrangement/freedom of physician choice, parking arrangements and type of hospital. A fractional factorial design was used to determine different attribute levels (e.g. charge for routine office visit could be set at $10, $20 or $30) for each card. Forty-five students performed ranking tasks for the trade-off approach to conjoint measurement. These respondents ranked 28 grids which represent all combinations of factors taken two at a time. From the data collected in the ranking tasks, utilities or part-worth values for each level of each attribute were estimated by using dummy variable regression. Relative importance of ambulatory service attributes was inferred from the range of utility values of the attributes. Three measures of validity were assessed--adherence of estimated utility scores to monotonic assumptions, plausability of importance rankings and comparative validity. The results from the full-profile approach satisfied all three criteria. In contrast, the tradeoff approach results satisfied the first two criteria, but its comparative validity was only marginal. Valid conjoint data can be used for: simulations of market responses to different health services configurations; market segmentation studies; and development of promotional efforts.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1983        PMID: 6867787     DOI: 10.1016/0277-9536(83)90347-7

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


  7 in total

1.  Simulating smokers' acceptance of modifications in a cessation program.

Authors:  R Spoth
Journal:  Public Health Rep       Date:  1992 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 2.792

2.  Views of older people on cataract surgery options: an assessment of preferences by conjoint analysis.

Authors:  M-A Ross; A J Avery; A J E Foss
Journal:  Qual Saf Health Care       Date:  2003-02

3.  Residents' preferences for household kitchen waste source separation services in Beijing: a choice experiment approach.

Authors:  Yalin Yuan; Mitsuyasu Yabe
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2014-12-23       Impact factor: 3.390

4.  Community preferences for a social health insurance benefit package: an exploratory study among the uninsured in Vietnam.

Authors:  Hoa Thi Nguyen; Tinh Viet Luu; Gerald Leppert; Manuela De Allegri
Journal:  BMJ Glob Health       Date:  2017-07-20

5.  Assessing societal and offender perspectives on the value of offender healthcare: a stated preference research protocol.

Authors:  Stella Nalukwago Settumba; Marian Shanahan; Georgina M Chambers; Peter Schofield; Tony Butler
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2019-03-23       Impact factor: 2.692

6.  Measuring preferences for analgesic treatment for cancer pain: how do African-Americans and Whites perform on choice-based conjoint (CBC) analysis experiments?

Authors:  Salimah H Meghani; Jesse Chittams; Alexandra L Hanlon; Joseph Curry
Journal:  BMC Med Inform Decis Mak       Date:  2013-10-18       Impact factor: 2.796

7.  What would an 'ideal' glaucoma examination be like? - A conjoint analysis of patients' and physicians' preferences.

Authors:  Daniel R Muth; Aljoscha S Neubauer; Annemarie Klingenstein; Ulrich Schaller; Siegfried G Priglinger; Christoph W Hirneiß
Journal:  Int Ophthalmol       Date:  2021-07-26       Impact factor: 2.031

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.