Empirical investigation of experimental design properties of discrete choice experiments in health care

Health Economics

Volumn 14, Issue 4, 2005, Pages 349-362

  Viney, Rosalie ^a   Savage, Elizabeth ^a   Louviere, Jordan ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY SYDNEY   (Australia)

Author keywords

Discrete choice experiments; Experimental design

Indexed keywords

ANXIETY; ARTICLE; DAILY LIFE ACTIVITY; DEPRESSION; EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN; FACTORIAL ANALYSIS; HEALTH CARE SYSTEM; HEALTH CARE UTILIZATION; HEALTH ECONOMICS; HEALTH STATUS; HUMAN; LIFE EXPECTANCY; MATHEMATICAL COMPUTING; MOBILIZATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY ADJUSTED LIFE YEAR; SELF CARE; SURVIVAL;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ATTITUDE TO HEALTH; CHOICE BEHAVIOR; CONSUMER SATISFACTION; COSTS AND COST ANALYSIS; HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH; HUMANS; MIDDLE AGED; MODELS, ECONOMETRIC; QUALITY-ADJUSTED LIFE YEARS; RESEARCH DESIGN;

EID: 17144418431     PISSN: 10579230     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/hec.981     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Farrar S, Ryan M. Response-ordering effects: a methodological issue in conjoint analysis. Health Econ 1999; 8: 75-79.
2. Jan S et al. The use of conjoint analysis to elicit community preferences in public health research: a case study of hospital services in South Australia. Aust NZ J Publ Health 2000; 24: 64-70.
3. Ratcliffe J et al. Assessing patients' preferences for characteristics associated with homeopathic and conventional treatment of asthma: a conjoint analysis study. Thorax 2002; 57: 503-508.
4. Ryan M, Hughes J. Using conjoint analysis to assess women's preferences for miscarriage management. Health Econ 1997; 6: 261-273.
5. Ryan M. Using conjoint analysis to take account of patient preferences and go beyond health outcomes: an application to in vitro fertilisation. Soc Sci Med 1999; 48: 535-546.
6. Van der Pol M, Cairns J. Establishing patient preferences for blood transfusion support: an application of conjoint analysis. J Health Serv Res Polic 1998; 3: 70-76.
7. Propper C. Contingent valuation of time spent on NHS waiting lists. Econ J 1990; 100: 193-199.
8. Bryan S et al. Magnetic resonance imaging for the investigation of knee injuries: an investigation of preferences. Health Econ 1998; 7: 595-603.
9. Johnson FR, Banzhaf MR, Desvousges WH. Willingness to pay for improved respiratory and cardiovascular health: a multiple-format, stated-preference approach. Health Econ 2000; 9: 295-317.
10. Louviere JJ, Hensher DA, Swait JD. Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Applications. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, New York, 2000.
11. k choice experiments. Commun Stat Theory M 2003; 32: 2185-2206.
12. k paired comparison experiments. Commun Stat Theory M 2001; 30: 2149-2171.
13. Street D, Burgess L. Optimal and near-optimal pairs for the estimation of effects in 2-level choice experiments. J Stat Plann Infer 2004; 118: 185-199.
14. Louviere J, Street D, Burgess L. A 20+ years retrospective on choice experiments. In Marketing Research and Modeling: Progress and Prospects, Wind Y, Green PE (eds). Kluwer: New York, 2003.
15. Huber J, Zwerina K. The importance of utility balance in efficient choice designs. J Marketing Res 1996; 33: 307-317.
16. Zwerina K, Huber J, Kuhfeld WF. A General Method for Constructing Efficient Choice Designs. Fuqua School of Business, Duke University: Durham, 1996.
17. Carlsson F, Martinsson P. Design techniques for stated preference methods in health economics. Health Econ 2003; 12: 281-294.
18. Maddala T, Phillips KA, Johnson RF. An experiment on simplifying conjoint analysis designs for measuring preferences. Health Econ 2003; 12: 1035-1047.
19. 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.
20. Savage E, Viney R. Valuing health care: an empirical analysis of the welfare foundations of QALYs. Australasian Meeting of the Econometrics Society, Sydney, 2003.
21. Thurstone LL. A law of comparative judgement. Psychol Rev 1927; 34: 283-286.
22. Manski C. The structure of random utility models. Theor Decis 1977; 8: 229-254.
23. McFadden D. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. In Frontiers of Econometrics, Zarembka P (ed.). Academic Press: New York, 1973; 105-142.
24. Hall J et al. Using stated preference discrete choice modelling to evaluate the introduction of varicella vaccination. Health Econ 2002; 11: 457-465.
25. Ben-Akiva M, Lerman SR. Discrete Choice Analysis: Theory and Application to Travel Demand. MIT Press: Cambridge, 1985.
26. Louviere JJ, Woodworth G. Design and analysis of simulated consumer choice or allocation experiments: an approach based on aggregate data. J Marketing Res 1983; 20: 350-367.
27. Louviere J et al. Dissecting the random component of utility. Marketing Lett 2002; 13: 175-191.
28. Severin V. Comparing statistical efficiency and respondent efficiency in choice experiments. In School of Marketing. University of Sydney: Sydney, 2000.
29. Dolan P. Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Med Care 1997; 35: 1095-1108.
30. Hakim Z, Pathak DS. Modelling the EuroQol data: a comparison of discrete choice conjoint and conditional preference modelling. Health Econ 1999; 8: 103-116.
31. Wiley JB. Selecting pareto optimal subsets from multiattribute alternatives. Adv Consumer Res 1978; 5: 171.
32. Swait J, Louviere J. The role of the scale parameter in the estimation and comparison of multinational logit models. J Marketing Res 1993; 30(3): 305-314.
33. Theil H. Principles of Econometrics. Wiley: New York, 1971.
34. Hundley V, Ryan M, Graham W. Assessing women's preferences for intrapartum care. Birth-Iss Perinat C 2001; 28: 254-263.
35. Farrar S et al. Using discrete choice modelling in priority setting: an application to clinical service developments. Soc Sci Med 2000; 50: 63-75.
36. Bech M. Politicians' and hospital managers' trade-offs in the choice of reimbursement scheme: a discrete choice experiment. Health Polic 2003; 66: 261-275.