Using conjoint analysis to assess women's preferences for miscarriage management

Health Economics

Volumn 6, Issue 3, 1997, Pages 261-273

  Ryan, Mandy ^a   Hughes, Jenny ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ABERDEEN   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY COLLEGE DUBLIN   (Ireland)

Author keywords

Conjoint analysis; Miscarriage management

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; HEALTH CARE DELIVERY; HEALTH ECONOMICS; METHODOLOGY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SPONTANEOUS ABORTION;

ABORTION, SPONTANEOUS; CHI-SQUARE DISTRIBUTION; CHOICE BEHAVIOR; CONSUMER SATISFACTION; COST OF ILLNESS; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; FEES AND CHARGES; FEMALE; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; HUMANS; INCOME; LIKELIHOOD FUNCTIONS; LINEAR MODELS; MODELS, ECONOMIC; MODELS, PSYCHOLOGICAL; PREGNANCY; PSYCHOMETRICS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SCOTLAND; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 0030796960     PISSN: 10579230     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1050(199705)6:3<261::AID-HEC262>3.0.CO;2-N     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. McNeil, B., Weichselbaum, R. and Pauker, S. Fallacy of the five year survival in lung cancer. The New England Journal of Medicine 1978; 299: 1397-1401.
2. McNeil, B., Weichselbaum, R., Stephen, G. and Pauker, S. Speech and survival. The New England Journal of Medicine 1981; 305: 982-987.
3. Nord, E. The validity of a visual analogue scale in determining social utility weight for health states. International Journal of Health Planning and Management 1991; 6: 234-242.
4. Torrance, G., Thomas, W. and Sackett, D. A utility maximization model for evaluation of health care programs. Health Services Research 1972; 7: 118-133.
5. Donaldson, C. Theory and Practice of Willingness to Pay for Health Care. Health Economics Research Unit Discussion Paper No. 01/93. Aberdeen: University of Aberdeen, 1993.
6. Cattin, P. and Wittink, D, Commercial use of conjoint analysis: a survey. Journal of Marketing 1982; 46: 44-53.
7. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy 1988; 22.
8. Rae, D. Visibility Impairment at Mesa Verde National Park: An Analysis of Benefits and Costs of Controlling Emissions in the Four Comers Area. Prepared for the Electric Power Research Institute, Charles River Associates, Boston, MA, 1981.
9. Rae, D. Benefits of Improving Visibility at Great Smoky National Park. Draft report prepared for Electric Power Research Institute, Charles River Associates, Boston, MA, 1981.
10. Desvousges, W. H., Smith, V. K. and McGivney, M.P. A Comparison of Alternative Approaches for Estimating Recreation and Related Benefits of Water Quality Improvements. Washington, DC: Office of Policy Analysis, US Environmental Protection Agency, 1983.
11. Magat, W.A., Viscusi, W. K. and Huber, J. Paired comparison and contingent valuation approaches to morbidity risk valuation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 1988; 15: 395-411.
12. Swallow, S., Opaluch, J., and Weaver, T. Siting noxious facilities: An approach that integrates technical, economic and political consideration. Land Economics, 1992; 68: 283-301.
13. Opaluch, J., Swallow, S., Weaver, T., Wessells, C. and Wichelns, D. Evaluating impacts from noxious facilities: Including public preferences in current siting mechanisms. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 1993; 24: 41-59.
14. McClain, J. and Rao, V. Trade-offs and conflicts in evaluation of health system alternatives: methodology for analysis. Health Services Research, 1974; 9: 35-52.
15. Parker, B and Srinivasan, V. A consumer preference approach to the planning of rural primary health-care facilities. Operations Research 1976; 24: 991-1025.
16. Wind, Y. and Spitz, L. Analytical approach to marketing decisions in health care organizations. Operations Research 1976; 24: 973-990.
17. Chakraborty, G., Ettenson, R. and Gaeth, G. How consumers choose health insurance. Journal of Health Care Marketing 1994; 14: 21-33.
18. Chakraborty, G., Gaeth, G. and Cunningham, M. Understanding consumers preferences for dental service. Journal of Health Care Marketing 1993; 21: 48-58.
19. Propper, C. Contingent valuation of time spent on NHS waiting lists. Economic Journal 1991; 100: 193-199.
20. Propper, C. The disutility of time spent on the United Kingdom's National Health Service waiting lists. The Journal of Human Resources 1995; 30: 677-700.
21. Ryan, M. and Farrar, S. A Pilot Study Using Conjoint Analysis to Establish the Views of Users in the Provision of Orthodontic Services in Grampian. Health Economics Research Unit Discussion Paper No. 07/94. Aberdeen: University of Aberdeen, 1994.
22. Ryan, M. Economics and the Patient's Utility Function: an Application to Assisted Reproductive Techniques. PhD Thesis, submitted to University of Aberdeen, 1995.
23. Vick, S. and Scott, A. What Makes a Perfect Agent? A Pilot Study of Patients' Preferences in the Doctor-Patient Relationship. Health Economics Research Unit Discussion Paper 05/95 Aberdeen: University of Aberdeen, 1995.
24. Ryan, M. and Hughes, J. Using Conjoint Analysis to Value Surgical Versus Medical Management of Miscarriage. Health Economics Research Unit Discussion Paper No. 06/95. Aberdeen: University of Aberdeen, 1995.
25. Statistical Package for the Social Sciences. Chicago: SPSS, 1989.
26. McFadden, D. Conditional Logit Analysis of Qualitative Choice Behaviour. Berkley, CA: University of California, 1973.
27. Hanemann, W. Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete responses: Reply. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 1984; 69: 332-341.
28. Mooney, G. What else do we want from our health services? Social Science and Medicine 1994; 39: 151-154.
29. Mooney, G. and Lange, M. Ante-natal screening: What constitutes benefit? Social Science and Medicine, 1993; 37: 873-878.
30. Donaldson, C. and Shackley, P. Does 'process utility' exist? A case study of willingness to pay for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Social Science and Medicine in press.
31. Ryan, M., Ratcliffe, J. and Tucker, J. Using willingness to pay to value alternative models of antenatal care. Social Science and Medicine in press.
32. Ryan, M., Scott, A., Farrar, S., Shackley, P., McIntosh, E. and Vick, S. Using Conjoint Analysis in Health Care: Unresolved Methodological Issues. HERU Discussion Paper No 02/96. Aberdeen: University of Aberdeen, 1996
33. Ryan, M. Establishing the Convergent Validity of Willingness to Pay and Conjoint Analysis for Eliciting Preferences. Paper presented to the Health Economists' Study Group Meeting, University of Brunei, July 1996.
34. Louviere, J. Conjoint analysis modelling of stated preferences. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, 1988, 22.
35. Bradley, M. User's Manual for the SPEED Version 2.1. Stated Preference Experiment Editor and Designer. Hague Consulting Group, 1991.