Do participants understand a stated preference health survey? A qualitative approach to assessing validity

International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care

Volumn 19, Issue 4, 2003, Pages 664-681

  Kenny, Patricia ^a   Hall, Jane ^a   Viney, Rosalie ^a   Haas, Marion ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY SYDNEY   (Australia)

Author keywords

Immunization; Qualitative methods; Stated preference discrete choice modeling; Validity

Indexed keywords

COMPUTER SIMULATION; IMMUNIZATION; INFORMATION ANALYSIS; SURVEYS; TELEPHONE;

CONTENT ANALYSIS; INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPTS;

HEALTH CARE;

CHICKENPOX VACCINE;

ADULT; CHICKENPOX; CLINICAL ARTICLE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; DECISION MAKING; DRUG COST; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HEALTH EDUCATION; HEALTH SURVEY; HUMAN; IMMUNIZATION; INTERVIEW; MALE; PARENT COUNSELING; PROCESS DEVELOPMENT; QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS; QUESTIONNAIRE; REVIEW; SIDE EFFECT; VALIDATION PROCESS;

EID: 1642542004     PISSN: 02664623     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S026646230300062X     Document Type: Review

References (22)

1. Australian Bureau of Statistics. Transition from education to work. Report No.: 6227.0. Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics; 2000.
2. Australian Bureau of Statistics. Australian social trends. Report No.: 4102.0. Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics; 2001.
3. Bennett J, Adamowicz V. Some fundamentals of environmental choice modelling. In: Bennett J, Blamey R, eds. The choice modelling approach to environmental valuation. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar; 2001.
4. Bennett J, Blamey R. The strengths and weaknesses of environmental choice modelling. In: Bennett J, Blamey R, eds. The choice modelling approach to environmental valuation. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar; 2001.
5. Booske BC, Sainfort F, Hundt AS. Eliciting consumer preferences for health plans. Health Serv Res. 1999;34:839-854.
6. Bowling A, Ebrahim S. Measuring patients' preferences for treatment and perceptions of risk. Qual Health Care. 2001;10:i2-i8.
7. Bryan S, Buxton M, Sheldon R, Grant A. Magnetic resonance imaging for the investigation of knee injuries: An investigation of preferences. Health Econ. 1998;7:595-603.
8. Bryan S, Gold L, Sheldon R, Buxton M. Preference measurement using conjoint methods: An empirical investigation of reliability. Health Econ. 2000;9:385-395.
9. Hall J, Kenny P, King M, et al. Using stated preference discrete choice modelling to evaluate the introduction of varicella vaccination. Health Econ. 2002;11:457-465.
10. Halloran ME, Cochi SL, Lieu TA, Wharton M, Fehrs L. Theoretical epidemiologic and morbidity effects of routine varicella immunization of preschool children in the United States. Am J Epidemiol. 1994;140:81-104.
11. Jan S, Mooney G, Ryan M, Bruggemenn K, Alexander K. The use of conjoint analysis to elicit community preferences in public health research: A case study of hospital services in south Australia. Aust N Z J Public Health. 2000;24:64-70.
12. Louviere J, Hensher D, Swait J. Stated choice methods: Theory methods and applications. Melbourne: Cambridge University Press; 2000.
13. Mallinson S. Listening to participants: A qualitative assessment of the short-form 36 health status questionnaire. Soc Sci Med. 2002;54:11-21.
14. Paterson C, Britten N. In pursuit of patient-centred outcomes: A qualitative evaluation of the "measure yourself medical outcome profile." J Health Serv Res Policy. 2000;5:27-36.
15. Patton MQ. Qualitative evaluation and research methods. 2nd ed. Newbury Park, California: Sage; 1990.
16. Ryan M, Bate A, Eastmond CJ, Ludbrook A. Use of discrete choice experiments to elicit preferences. Qual Health Care. 2001;10:i55-i60.
17. Ryan M, Hughes J. Using conjoint analysis to assess women's preferences for miscarriage management. Health Econ. 1997;6:261-273.
18. Ryan M, McIntosh E, Shackley P. Methodological issues in the application of conjoint analysis in health care. Health Econ. 1998;7:373-378.
19. Scientific Software Development. Atlas/ti visual qualitative data analysis management theory building: User's guide and reference. Berlin: Scientific Software Development; 1997.
20. Tversky A, Kahneman D. Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. In: Kahneman D, Slovic P, Tversky A, eds. Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1982.
21. Van der Pol M, Cairns J. Establishing patient preferences for blood transfusion support: An application of conjoint analysis. J Health Serv Res Policy. 1998;3:70-76.
22. Viney R, Lancsar E, Louviere J. Discrete choice experiments to measure consumer preferences for health and healthcare. Expert Rev Pharmacoeconomics Outcomes Res. 2002;2:319-326.