Using conjoint analysis to elicit preferences for health care

British Medical Journal

Volumn 320, Issue 7248, 2000, Pages 1530-1533

  Ryan, Mandy ^a   Farrar, Shelley ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ABERDEEN   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

HEALTH CARE DELIVERY; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW;

EID: 0034600459     PISSN: 09598146     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.320.7248.1530     Document Type: Review

References (37)

1. 1 Secretaries of State for Health, Wales, Northern Ireland, and Scotland. Working for patients. London: HMSO, 1989.
2. 2 NHS Management Executive. Local voices: the views of local people purchasing for health. London: Department of Health, 1992.
3. 3 Secretaries of State for Health, Wales, Northern Ireland, and Scotland. Promoting better health. London: HMSO, 1989.
4. 4 Secretary of State for Health. The health of the nation. London: HMSO, 1989.
5. 5 Scottish Office Department of Health. The patient's charter: what users think. Edinburgh: HMSO, 1992.
6. 6 Cleary P. The increasing importance of patient surveys. BMJ 1999;319:720-1.
7. 7 Luce D, Tukey J. Simultaneous conjoint measurement: a new type of fundamental measurement. J Math Psychol 1964;1:1-27.
8. 8 Anderson N. Functional measurement and psycho-physical judgement. Psychol Rev 1977;77:153-70.
9. 9 McFadden D. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behaviour. Berkeley, CA: University of California at Berkeley, 1973. (Working paper No 199 BART 10.)
10. 10 Cattin P, Wittink D. Commercial use of conjoint analysis: a survey. J Marketing 1982;46:44-53.
11. 11 [Conjoint analysis.] J Transport Econ Policy 1988;22(1).
12. 12 Opaluch J, Swallow S, Weaver T, Wessells C, Wichelns D. Evaluating impacts from noxious facilities: including public preferences in current siting mechanisms. J Environ Econ Manage 1993;24:41-59.
13. 13 Adamowicz W, Louviere J, Williams M. Combining revealed preference and stated preference methods for valuing environmental amenities. J Environ Econ Manage 1994;6:271-92.
14. 14 Cave M, Burningham D, Buxton M, Hanney S, Pollitt C, Scanlan M, et al. The valuation of changes in quality in the public services. London: HMSO, 1993.
15. 15 Bryan S, Buxton M, Sheldon R, Giant A. Magnetic resonance imaging for the investigation of knee injuries: an investigation of preference. Health Econ 1998;7:595-604.
16. 16 Propper C. Contingent valuation of time spent on NHS waiting list. Econ J 1991;100:193-9.
17. 17 Propper C. The disutility of time spent on the United Kingdom's National Health Service waiting lists. J Hum Resources 1995;30:677-700.
18. 18 Ratcliffe J, Buxton M. Patients' preferences regarding the process and outcomes of life saving technology: an application of conjoint analysis to liver transplantation. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1999;15:340-51.
19. 19 Ryan M. Using conjoint analysis to go beyond health outcomes: an application to in vitro fertilisation. Soc Sci Med 1999;8:535-46.
20. 20 Van der Pol M, Cairns J. Establishing preferences for blood transfusion support: an application of conjoint analysis. J Health Services Res Manage 1998;3:70-6.
21. 21 Ryan M, McIntosh E, Shacklev P. Using conjoint analysis to assess consumer preferences in primary care: an application to the patient health card. Health Expectations 1998;1:117-29.
22. 22 Ryan M, McIntosh E, Dean T, Old P. Trade-offs between location and waiting times in the provision of health care: the case of elective surgery on the Isle of Wight. J Public Health Med (in press).
23. 23 Farrar S, Ryan M, Ross D, Ludbrook A. Using discrete choice modelling in priority setting: an application to clinical service developments. Soc Sci Med 2000;50:63-75.
24. 24 Hakim Z, Pathak D. Modelling the EuroQol data: a comparison of discrete choice conjoint and conditional preference modelling. Health Econ 1999;8:103-16.
25. 25 Harwood R, Rogers A, Dickinson E, Ebrahim S. Measuring handicap: the London handicap scale, a new outcome measure for chronic disease. Qual Health Care 1994;3:11-6.
26. 26 Maas A, Stalpers L. Assessing utilities by means of conjoint measurement: an application in medical decision analysis. Med Decision Making 1992;12:288-97.
27. 27 Verhoef C, Maas A, Stalpers L, Verbeek A, Wobbes I, Daal W. The feasibility of additive conjoint measurement in measuring utilities in breast cancer patients. Health Policy 1991;17:39-50.
28. 28 Ryan M, Hughes J. Using conjoint analysis to value surgical versus medical management of miscarriage. Health Econ 1997;6:261-73.
29. 29 San Miguel F, Ryan M, Mcintosh E. Applying conjoint analysis in economic evaluations: an application to menorrhagia. Appl Econ (in press).
30. 30 Scott A, Vick S. Patients, doctors and contracts: an application of principal-agent theory to the donor-patient relationship. Scot J Political Econ 1999;46:111-34.
31. 31 Vick S, Scott A. What makes a perfect agent? A pilot study of patients' preferences in the doctor patient relationship. J Health Econ 1998;17:587-606.
32. 32 Kocur G, Alder T, Hyman W, Aunet B. Guide to forecasting travel demand with direct utility assessment. Washington, DC: US Department of Transportation, 1982.
33. 33 Bradley M. User's manual for the SPEED version 2.1. Stated preference experiment editor and designer. Hague: Hague Consulting Group, 1991.
34. 34 Greene W. Econometric analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1993.
35. 35 Greene W. LIMDEP version 7.0. New York: Econometric Software, 1995.
36. 36 Smith R. The NHS in Dumfries and Galloway: straining but optimistic. BMJ 1999;319:1123-7.
37. 37 Emery D, Barron F. Axiomatic and numerical conjoint measurement: an evaluation of diagnostic efficacy. Psychometrika 179;44:195-210.