Applicability of discrete-choice methods to economic evaluations of complementary and alternative medicine

Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research

Volumn 5, Issue 4, 2005, Pages 479-487

  Meenan, Richard T ^a  

^a CENTER FOR HEALTH RESEARCH   (United States)

Author keywords

CAM; Complementary medicine; Conjoint analysis; Cost benefit; Cost effectiveness; Discrete choice; Economic evaluation

Indexed keywords

ACUPUNCTURE; ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE; CLINICAL TRIAL; ECONOMIC EVALUATION; GENERAL PRACTITIONER; HEALTH ECONOMICS; HEALTH INSURANCE; HEALTH STATUS; HOMEOPATHY; HUMAN; LOW BACK PAIN; MANIPULATIVE MEDICINE; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; MEDICAL FEE; PATIENT SATISFACTION; REVIEW; SKILL;

EID: 24744455689     PISSN: 14737167     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1586/14737167.5.4.479     Document Type: Review

References (65)

1. Astin JA. Why patients use alternative medicine: results of a national study. JAMA 279, 1548-1553 (1998).
2. Eisenberg DM, Davis RB, Ettner SL et al. Trends in alternative medicine use in the United States, 1990-1997: results of a follow-up national survey. JAMA 280, 1569-1575 (1998).
3. Tindle HA, Davis RB, Phillips RS, Eisenberg DM. Trends in use of complementary and alternative medicine by US adults: 1997-2002. Altern. Ther. Health Med. 11, 42-49 (2005).
4. Barnes PM, Powell-Griner E, McFann K, Nahin RL. Complementary and alternative medicine use among adults: United States, 2002. Adv. Data 27, 1-19 (2004).
5. Manheimer E, Berman B. NCCAM support for the Cochrane Collaboration CAM Field. Complement. Ther. Med. 11, 268-271 (2003).
6. Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, Weinstein MC. Cost - Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK (1996).
7. Hulme C, Long AF. Square pegs and round holes? A review of economic evaluation of complementary and alternative medicine. J. Altern. Complement. Med. 11(1), 179-188 (2005).
8. Mooney G. Beyond health outcomes: the benefits of healthcare. Healthcare Anal. 6, 99-105 (1998).
9. Ryan M. Using conjoint analysis to take account of patient preferences and go beyond health outcomes: an application to in vitro fertilization. Soc. Sci. Med. 48, 535-546 (1998).
10. Salkeld G. What are the benefits of preventive healthcare? Healthcare Anal. 6, 106-112 (1998).
11. Furnham A, Bhagrath R. A comparison of health beliefs and behaviors of clients of orthodox and complementary medicine. Br. J. Clin. Psychol. 32, 237-246 (1993).
12. Furnham A, Forey J. The attitudes, behaviors and beliefs of patients of conventional vs. complementary (alternative) medicine. J. Clin. Psychol. 50, 458-469 (1994).
13. Vick S, Scott A. Agency in healthcare. Examining patients' preferences for attributes of the doctor-patient relationship. J. Health Econ. 17, 587-606 (1998).
14. Petry JJ, Finkel R. Spirituality and choice of healthcare practitioner. J. Altern. Complement. Med. 10, 939-945 (2004).
15. Honda K, Jacobson JS. Use of complementary and alternative medicine among United States adults: the influences of personality, coping strategies, and social support. Prev. Med. 40, 46-53 (2005).
16. Dolan P. The nature of individual preferences: a prologue to Johannesson, Jonsson, and Karlsson. Health Econ. 6, 91-93 (1997).
17. Donaldson C, Shackley P. Does 'process utility' exist? A case study of willingness to pay for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Soc. Sci. Med. 44, 699-707 (1997).
18. Ryan M. A role for conjoint analysis in technology assessment in healthcare. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Healthcare 15, 443-457 (1999).
19. Ryan M, Farrar S. Using conjoint analysis to elicit preferences for healthcare. Br. Med. J. 320, 1530-1533 (2000).
20. Bridges JF. Stated preference methods in healthcare evaluation: an emerging methodological paradigm in health economics. Appl. Health Econ. Health Policy 2(4), 213-224 (2003).
21. Louviere JJ, Hensher DA, Swait JD. Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Application. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK (2000).
22. Ryan M, Gerard K. Using discrete choice experiments to value healthcare programmes: current practice and future research reflections. Appl. Health Econ. Health Policy 2(1), 55-64 (2003).
23. Viney R, Lancsar E, Louviere J. Discrete choice experiments to measure consumer preferences for health and healthcare. Expert Rev. Pharmacoeconomics Outcomes Res. 2(4), 319-326 (2002).
24. Viney R, Savage E, Louviere J. Empirical investigation of experimental design properties of discrete choice experiments in healthcare. Health Econ. 14(4), 349-362 (2005).
25. Ryan M, Watson V, Amaya-Amaya M. Methodological issues in the monetary valuation of benefits in healthcare. Expert Rev. Pharmacoeconomics Outcomes Res. 3(6), 717-727 (2003).
26. Mason S, Tovey P, Long AF. Evaluating complementary medicine: methodological challenges of randomised controlled trials. Br. Med. J. 325, 832-834 (2002).
27. Long AF. Outcome measurement in complementary and alternative medicine: unpicking the effects. J. Altern. Complement. Med. 8(6), 777-786 (2002).
28. Miller FG, Emanuel EJ, Rosenstein DL, Straus SE. Ethical issues concerning research in complementary and alternative medicine. JAMA. 291, 599-604 (2004).
29. Eisenberg L. Complementary and alternative medicine: what is its role? Harv. Rev. Psychiatry 10, 221-230 (2002).
30. Cherkin DC, MacCornack FA. Patient evaluations of low back pain care from family physicians and chiropractors. West. J. Med. 150, 351-355 (1989).
31. Vincent C, Furnham A. Why do patients turn to complementary medicine? An empirical study. Br. J. Clin. Psychol. 35, 37-48 (1996).
32. Sharples FM, van Haselen R, Fisher P. NHS patients' perspective on complementary medicine: a survey. Complement. Ther. Med. 11, 243-248 (2003).
33. Pagán JA, Pauly MV. Access to conventional medical care and the use of complementary and alternative medicine. Health Aff. (Millwood) 24(1), 255-262 (2005).
34. Ritchie CS, Gohmann SF, McKinney WP. Does use of CAM for specific health problems increase with reduced access to care? J. Med. Syst. 29, 143-153 (2005).
35. Mooney G, Lange M. Ante-natal screening: what constitutes benefit? Soc. Sci. Med. 37, 873-878 (1993).
36. Mootz RD, Phillips RB. Chiropractic belief systems. In: Chiropractic in the United States: Training, Practice, and Research. Cherkin DC, Mootz RD (Eds). Agency for Health Care Policy and Research, MD, USA, 98-N002 (1997).
37. Stalmeier PF, Unic IJ, Verhoef LC, Van Daal WA. Evaluation of a shared decision making program for women suspected to have a genetic predisposition to breast cancer: preliminary results. Med. Decis. Making 19, 230-241 (1999).
38. Evans RG, Stoddart GL. Producing health, consuming healthcare. Soc. Sci. Med. 31, 1347-1363 (1990).
39. Cherkin DC. Primary care research on low back pain: the state of the science. Spine 23, 1997-2002 (1998).
40. Howie JGR, Heaney DJ, Maxwell M, Walker JJ. A comparison of the patient enablement instrument (PEI) against two established satisfaction scales as an outcome measure of primary care consultations. Fam. Pract. 15, 165-171 (1998).
41. Finnegan MD. Complementary medicine: attitudes and expectations, a scale for evaluation. Complement. Med. Res. 5, 79-82 (1991).
42. Burns DD, Auerbach A. Therapeutic empathy in cognitive-behavioral therapy: does it really make a difference? In: Frontiers of Cognitive Therapy. Salkovskis P (Ed.). Guildford Press, NY, USA, 134-164 (1996).
43. Long AF, Mercer G, Hughes K. Developing a tool to measure holistic practice: a missing dimension in outcomes measurement within complementary therapy. Complement. Ther. Med. 8, 26-31 (2000).
44. Paterson C, Britten N. In pursuit of patient-centered outcomes: a qualitative evaluation of the 'Measure Yourself Medical Outcome Profile'. J. Health Serv. Res. Policy 5, 27-36 (2000).
45. Paterson C. Measuring outcomes in primary care: a patient generated measure, MYMOP, compared with the SF-35 health survey. Br. Med. J. 312, 1012-1020 (1996).
46. EuroQol Group. EuroQol: a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy 16, 199-208 (1990).
47. Ware JE, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med. Care 30, 473-483 (1992).
48. Lancaster K. A new approach to consumer theory. J. Polit. Econ. 74, 132-157 (1966).
49. McFadden D. Econometric models of probabilistic choice. In: Structural Analysis of Discrete Data with Econometric Applications. Manski CF, McFadden D (Eds). MIT Press, Cambridge, UK (1981).
50. Ryan M, Scott DA, Reeves C et al. Eliciting public preferences for healthcare: a systematic review of techniques. Health Technol. Assess. 5, 1-186 (2001).
51. Kuhfeld WF, Tobias RD, Garratt M. Efficient experimental design with marketing research applications. J. Market Res. 31, 545-557 (1994).
52. Ratcliffe J. The use of conjoint analysis to elicit willingness-to-pay values. Proceed with caution? Int. J. Technol. Assess. Hedthcare 16, 270-275 (2000).
53. Ryan M, Hughes J. Using conjoint analysis to assess women's preferences for miscarriage management. Health Econ. 6, 261-273 (1997).
54. Harwood RH, Rogers A, Dickinson E, Ebrahim. S. Measuring handicap: the London handicap scale, a new outcome measure for chronic disease. Qual. Healthcare 3, 11-16 (1994).
55. Verhoef CG, Maas A, Stalpers LJA, Verbeek ALM, Wobbes T, van Daal WAJ. The feasibility of additive conjoint measurement in measuring utilities in breast cancer patients. Health Policy 17, 39-50 (1991).
56. San Miguel F, Ryan M, McIntosh E. Applying conjoint analysis in economic evaluations: an application to menorrhagia. Applied Econ. 32, 823-833 (2000).
57. Ratcliffe J, Van Haselen R, Buxton M, Hardy K, Colehan J, Partridge M. Assessing patients' preferences for characteristics associated with homeopathic and conventional treatment of asthma: a conjoint analysis study. Thorax 57, 503-508 (2002).
58. Lloyd A. Threats to the estimation of benefits: are preference elicitation methods accurate? Health Econ. 12, 393-402 (2003).
59. Ryan M, Amaya-Amaya M. 'Threats' to and hopes for estimating benefits. Health Econ. 14, 609-620 (2005).
60. Cairns J, van der PM, Lloyd A. Decision making heuristics and the elicitation of preferences: being fast and frugal about the future. Health Econ. 11, 655-658 (2002).
61. Finucane ML, Alhakami A, Slovic P, Johnson SM. The affect heuristic in judgments of risks and benefits. J. Behav. Dec. Making. 13, 1-17 (2000).
62. Fabrega H Jr. Medical validity in Eastern and Western traditions. Perspect. Biol. Med. 45(3), 395-415 (2002).
63. Slovic P. Trust, emotion, sex, politics and science: surveying the risk-assessment battlefield. In: The Perception of Risk, Chapter 25. Slovic P (Ed.). Earthscan, London, UK (2000).
64. Kelner MJ, Boon H, Wellman B, Welsh S. Complementary and alternative groups contemplate the need for effectiveness, safety, and cost - effectiveness research. Complement. Ther. Med. 20, 235-239 (2002).
65. Griffiths V. Eastern and Western paradigms: the holistic nature of traditional Chinese medicine. Aust. J. Holist. Nurs. 6, 35-38 (1999).