Preferences for hospital quality in Zambia: Results from a discrete choice experiment

Health Economics

Volumn 14, Issue 7, 2005, Pages 687-701

  Hanson, Kara ^a   McPake, Barbara ^a   Nakamba, Pamela ^b   Archard, Luke ^a  

^a LONDON SCHOOL OF HYGIENE AND TROPICAL MEDICINE   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ZAMBIA   (Zambia)

Author keywords

Discrete choice experiments; Hospitals; Quality; Zambia

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; BRAIN MALARIA; CALCULATION; CLINICAL EXAMINATION; CONTROLLED STUDY; COST UTILITY ANALYSIS; DRUG USE; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE AVAILABILITY; HEALTH CARE COST; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HEALTH PERSONNEL ATTITUDE; HOSPITAL CARE; HUMAN; LOBAR PNEUMONIA; MALE; NONLINEAR SYSTEM; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSPECTIVE PAYMENT; QUESTIONNAIRE; SOCIOECONOMICS; THEORETICAL STUDY; TIME; ZAMBIA;

ADULT; CHOICE BEHAVIOR; COSTS AND COST ANALYSIS; FEMALE; HOSPITAL CHARGES; HUMANS; MALARIA, CEREBRAL; MALE; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PNEUMONIA; QUALITY OF HEALTH CARE; SOCIOECONOMIC FACTORS; ZAMBIA;

EID: 21844443841     PISSN: 10579230     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/hec.959     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Johnson FR, Banzhaf MR, Desvousges WF. Willingness to pay for improved respiratory and cardiovascular health: a multiple-format, stated-preference approach. Health Econ 2000; 9: 295-317.
2. Ryan M, Farrar S. Using conjoint analysis to elicit preferences for health care. Br Med J 2000; 320: 1530-1533.
3. Louviere JJ, Hensher DA, Swait JD. Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Applications. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 2000.
4. Ryan M, Gerard K. Using choice experiments to value health care programmes: current practice and future challenges. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Health Economics Association Conference. University of York, UK, 22-25 July 2001.
5. Hakim Z, Pathak DS. Modelling the Euroqol data: a comparison of discrete choice conjoint and conditional preference modelling. Health Econ 1999; 8: 103-116.
6. van der Pol M, Cairns J. Estimating time preferences for health using discrete choice experiments. Social Sci Med 2001; 52: 1459-1470.
7. Scott A, Stuart Watson M, Ross S. Eliciting preferences of the community for out-of-hours care provided by general practitioners: a stated preference discrete choice experiment. Social Sci Med 2003; 56: 803-814.
8. Scott A. Eliciting GPs preferences for pecuniary and non-pecuniary job characteristics. J Health Econ 2001; 20: 329-347.
9. Scott A. Identifying and analysing dominant preferences in discrete choice experiments: an application in health care. J Econ Psychol 2002; 23: 383-398.
10. McIntosh E, Ryan M. Using discrete choice experiments to derive welfare estimates for the provision of elective surgery: implications of discontinuous preferences. J Econ Psychol 2002; 23: 367-382.
11. Jan S, Mooney G, Ryan M 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 Public Health 2000; 24(1): 64-70.
12. Bryan S, Buxton M, Sheldon R et al. Magnetic resonance imaging for the investigation of knee injuries: an investigation of preferences. Health Econ 1998; 7: 595-603.
13. 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(2): 70-76.
14. Ryan M, Bate A, Eastmond CJ et al. Use of discrete choice experiments to elicit preferences. Qual Health Care 2001; 10(Suppl I): i55-i60.
15. Ryan M, Hughes J. Using conjoint analysis to assess women's preferences for miscarriage management. Health Econ 1997; 6: 261-273.
16. Ryan M. Using conjoint analysis to take account of patient preferences and go beyond health outcomes: an application to in vitro fertilisation. Social Sci Med 1999; 48: 535-546.
17. Salkeld G, Ryan M, Short L. The veil of experience: do consumers prefer what they know best? Health Econ Lett 2000; 9: 267-270.
18. Michaels J, Brazier J, Palfreyman S et al. Cost and outcome implications of the organisation of vascular services. Health Technol Assess 2000; 4(11): 1-191.
19. 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(2): 340-351.
20. Farrar S, Ryan M. Response-ordering effects: a methodological issue in conjoint analysis. Health Econ Lett 1999; 8: 75-79.
21. Ratcliffe J. Public preferences for the allocation of donor liver grafts for transplantation. Health Econ 2000; 9: 137-148.
22. Republic of Zambia. Living Standards Monitoring Survey. Central Statistics Office: Lusaka, 1998.
23. Lake S, Musumali C. Zambia: the role of aid management in sustaining visionary reform. Health Policy Plann 1999; 14(3): 254-263.
24. McPake B. Public autonomous hospitals in sub-Saharan Africa: trends and issues. Health Policy 1996; 35: 155-177.
25. Nakamba P, Hangoro C, McPake B et al. Zambia case study. In Health Sector Reforms: What About Hospitals? Eriksson P, Diwan V, Karlberg I (eds). Nordic School of Public Health: Goteborg, 2002.
26. Nakamba P, Hanson K, McPake B. Markets for hospital services in Zambia. Int J Health Plann Manage 2002; 17(3): 229-247.
27. Kamwanga J, Hanson K, McPake B et al. Autonomous hospitals in Zambia and the equity implications of the market for hospital services. Phase I Report: A Description of the Current State of Hospital Autonomy Policy. London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine: London, 1999.
28. McFadden D. Conditional Logit Analysis of Qualitative Choice Behaviour. University of California at Berkeley: Berkeley, 1973.
29. Maddala GS. Limited Dependent and Qualitative Variables in Econometrics. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 1983.
30. Kamwanga J, McPake B, Hanson K. Community Perceptions of Hospital Quality of Care: Sub-study of a Project on Autonomous Hospitals in Zambia. London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine: London, 2001.
31. Filmer D, Pritchett L. Estimating wealth effects without expenditure data-or tears: an application to educational enrollements in states of India. Demography 2001; 38(1): 115-132.
32. Telser H, Zweifel P. Measuring willingness-to-pay for risk reduction: an application of conjoint analysis. Health Econ 2002; 11: 129-139.
33. McPake B, Nakamba P, Hanson K. Incentives and the Allocation of Resources within Public Tertiary Hospitals in Zambia. Health Economics and Financing Programme WP 05/04. London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine: London, 2004.