Design techniques for stated preference methods in health economics

Health Economics

Volumn 12, Issue 4, 2003, Pages 281-294

  Carlsson, Fredrik ^a   Martinsson, Peter ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GOTHENBURG   (Sweden)

^b LUND UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

Author keywords

Choice experiments; Health economics; Optimal design

Indexed keywords

ACCURACY; ANALYTIC METHOD; ANALYTICAL ERROR; ARTICLE; CALCULATION; HEALTH ECONOMICS; HUMAN; MONTE CARLO METHOD; PREDICTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSPECTIVE PAYMENT; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; SIMULATION; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; WELFARE;

ALGORITHMS; ATTITUDE TO HEALTH; CHOICE BEHAVIOR; COMPUTER SIMULATION; CONSUMER SATISFACTION; FINANCING, PERSONAL; HEALTH CARE SURVEYS; HUMANS; MODELS, ECONOMETRIC; MONTE CARLO METHOD; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS;

EID: 0037390267     PISSN: 10579230     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/hec.729     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Maas A, Stalpers L. Assessing utilities by means of health system alternatives: Methodology for analysis. Health Services Res 1992; 9: 35-52.
2. Propper C. The disutility of time spent on the United Kingdom's National Health Service waiting list. J Human Resour 1995; 30: 677-700.
3. Ryan M, Hughes J. Using conjoint analysis to assess women's preferences for miscarriage management. Health Econ 1997; 6: 261-273.
4. San Miguel F, Ryan M, McIntosh E. Establishing women's preferences for the treatment of menorrhagia using the technique of conjoint analysis. Health Economics Research Unit Discussion Paper No. 06/97, University of Aberdeen, 1997.
5. Van der Pol M, Cairns J. Establishing patient preferences for blood transfusion support: An application of conjoint analysis. J Health Services Res Policy 1998; 3: 70-76.
6. Verheof C, Maas A, Stalpers L, Verbeek A, Wobbes T, Daal W. The feasibility of additive conjoint measurement in measuring utilities in breast cancer patients. Health Policy 1991; 17: 39-50.
7. Vick S, Scott A. Agency in health care: examining patients' preferences for attributes of the doctor-patient relationship. J Health Econ 1998; 17: 587-605.
8. Zweifel P, Breyer F. Health Economics. Oxford University Press: Oxford, 1997.
9. Zwerina K. Discrete Choice Experiments in Marketing. Physica-Verlag: Heidelberg, 1997.
10. NOAA. Natural resource damage assessments under the oil pollution act of 1990. Fed Regist 1993; 58: 4601-4614.
11. van der Pol M, Cairns J. Estimating time preferences for health using discrete choice experiments. Soc Sci Med 2000; 52: 1459-1470.
12. Kuhfeld W, Tobias R, Garrat M. Efficient experimental design with marketing research applications. J Marketing Res 1994; 31: 545-557.
13. Huber J, Zwerina K. The importance of utility balance in efficient choice designs. J Marketing Res 1996; 33: 307-317.
14. McFadden D. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behaviour. In Frontiers in Econometrics, Zarembka P (ed.). Academic Press: New York, 1974; 105-142.
15. Louviere J. Analyzing decision making: metric conjoint analysis. Sage University Paper Series Quantitative Applications in the Social Science, Vol. 67, Sage: Newbury Park, 1988.
16. Bunch D, Louviere J, Anderson D. A comparison of experimental design strategies for multinomial logit models: the case of generic attributes. Working Paper, Graduate School of Management, University of California at Davis, 1994.
17. Zwerina K, Huber J, Kuhfeld W. A general method for constructing efficient choice designs. Working Paper, Fuqua School of Business, Duke University, 1996.
18. Alberini A. Optimal designs for discrete choice contingent valuation surveys: single-bound, double-bound, and bivariate models. J Environ Econ Manage 1995; 28: 287-306.
19. Kanninen B. Optimal experimental design for double-bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation. Land Econ 1993; 69: 138-146.
20. Kanninen B. Optimal design for multinomial choice experiments. Journal of Marketing Research 2002; 39: 214-227.
21. Kanninen B. Design of sequential experiments for contingent valuation studies. J Environ Econ Manage 1993; 25: 1-11.
22. Johnson R, Banzhaf M, Desvouges W. Willingness to pay for improved respiratory and cardiovascular health: a multiple-format stated-preference approach. Health Econ 2000; 9: 295-317.
23. Carlsson F, Martinsson P. Do hypothetical and actual marginal willingness to pay differ in choice Experiments? - Application to the valuation of the environment. J Environ Econ Manage 2001: 41: 179-192.
24. Steffens K, Lupi F, Kanninen B, Hoen J. Implementing an optimal experimental design for binary choice experiments: an application to bird watching in Michigan. In Benefits and Costs of Resource Policies Affecting Public and Private Land, Polaksy S (ed.). Western Regional Research Publication, 2000.
25. Johansson P-O. Evaluating Health Risks. An Economic Approach. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1995.