Literature DB >> 9683097

Methodological issues in the application of conjoint analysis in health care.

M Ryan1, E McIntosh, P Shackley.   

Abstract

This paper adds to an increasing literature on methodological questions addressed in the application of conjoint analysis (CA) in health care. Three issues are addressed: ordering effects; internal validity; and internal consistency. The results of an application of CA in a primary care setting provide no evidence that the ordering of scenarios was important. Evidence was found of both internal validity and internal consistency. In addition, individual preferences were found to be determined by experiences, which raise potentially important questions regarding the elicitation and use of such preferences in economic evaluation.

Mesh:

Year:  1998        PMID: 9683097     DOI: 10.1002/(sici)1099-1050(199806)7:4<373::aid-hec348>3.0.co;2-j

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


  39 in total

1.  Measuring preferences for health care interventions using conjoint analysis: an application to HIV testing.

Authors:  Kathryn A Phillips; Tara Maddala; F Reed Johnson
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2002-12       Impact factor: 3.402

2.  Measuring what people value: a comparison of "attitude" and "preference" surveys.

Authors:  Kathryn A Phillips; F Reed Johnson; Tara Maddala
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2002-12       Impact factor: 3.402

3.  Discrete choice experiments in health economics. For better or for worse?

Authors:  Stirling Bryan; Paul Dolan
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2004-10

4.  Validity and Reliability of Willingness-to-Pay Estimates: Evidence from Two Overlapping Discrete-Choice Experiments.

Authors:  Harry Telser; Karolin Becker; Peter Zweifel
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2008-12-01       Impact factor: 3.883

5.  Patient preferences and linear scoring rules for patient-reported outcomes.

Authors:  Ateesha F Mohamed; A Brett Hauber; F Reed Johnson; Cheryl D Coon
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2010-12-01       Impact factor: 3.883

6.  Why should regulators consider using patient preferences in benefit-risk assessment?

Authors:  Janine A van Til; Maarten J Ijzerman
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2014-01       Impact factor: 4.981

7.  On the meaningfulness of testing preference axioms in stated preference discrete choice experiments.

Authors:  Jens Leth Hougaard; Tue Tjur; Lars Peter Osterdal
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2011-05-05

8.  Health outcome priorities among competing cardiovascular, fall injury, and medication-related symptom outcomes.

Authors:  Mary E Tinetti; Gail J McAvay; Terri R Fried; Heather G Allore; Joanna C Salmon; Joanne M Foody; Luann Bianco; Sandra Ginter; Liana Fraenkel
Journal:  J Am Geriatr Soc       Date:  2008-07-24       Impact factor: 5.562

9.  Multiple sclerosis patients' benefit-risk preferences: serious adverse event risks versus treatment efficacy.

Authors:  F Reed Johnson; George Van Houtven; Semra Ozdemir; Steve Hass; Jeff White; Gordon Francis; David W Miller; J Theodore Phillips
Journal:  J Neurol       Date:  2009-04-27       Impact factor: 4.849

10.  Conjoint analysis of a new Chemotherapy: willingness to pay and preference for the features of raltitrexed versus standard therapy in advanced Colorectal Cancer.

Authors:  Mike Aristides; Jack Chen; Mark Schulz; Eve Williamson; Stephen Clarke; Kaye Grant
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2002       Impact factor: 4.981

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.