"Quick and dirty numbers"?. The reliability of a stated-preference technique for the measurement of preferences for resource allocation

Journal of Health Economics

Volumn 25, Issue 3, 2006, Pages 432-448

  Schwappach, David L B ^a   Strasmann, Thomas J ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WITTEN HERDECKE   (Germany)

Author keywords

Generalizability theory; Internet; Priority setting; Public preferences; Reliability; Resource allocation; Stated preferences

Indexed keywords

DECISION MAKING; INTERNET; RELIABILITY ANALYSIS; RESOURCE ALLOCATION; SURVEY;

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; FUNDING; HEALTH PROGRAM; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; INTERNET; MALE; MEASUREMENT; NORMAL HUMAN; RELIABILITY; RESOURCE ALLOCATION; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; TREATMENT PLANNING;

ADULT; CONSUMER SATISFACTION; FEMALE; GERMANY; HEALTH CARE RATIONING; HUMANS; INTERNET; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; QUESTIONNAIRES;

EID: 33646024295     PISSN: 01676296     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhealeco.2005.08.002     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Bateman I.J., Carson R.T., Day B., Hanemann M., Hanley N., Hett T., Jones-Lee M., Loomes G., Mouranto S., Özdemiroglu E., Pearce D.W., Sugden R., and Swanson J. Economic Valuation with Stated Preference Techniques (2002), Edward Elgar, Cheltenham
2. Bradley M. Users Manual for SPEED. Version 2.1 Stated Preference Editor and Designer (1991), Hague Consulting Group, The Hague
3. Brennan R.L. Generalizability Theory (2001), Springer, New York
4. Bryan S., Gold L., Sheldon R., and Buxton M. Preference measurement using conjoint methods: an empirical investigation of reliability. Health Economics 9 (2000) 385-395
5. Bryan S., and Parry D. Structural reliability of conjoint measurement in health care: an empirical investigation. Applied Economics 34 (2002) 561-567
6. Bryan S., Roberts T., Heginbotham C., and McCallum A. QALY-maximisation and public preferences: results from a general population survey. Health Economics 11 (2002) 679-693
7. Crick G.E., and Brennan R.L. Genova Suite: A Generalized Analysis of Variance System (Fortran IV Computer Program and Manual) (1982), University of Massachusetts at Boston, Computer Facilities, Dorchester, MA
8. Dong H., Kouyate B., Cairns J., and Sauerborn R. A comparison of the reliability of the take-it-or-leave-it and the bidding game approaches to estimating willingness-to-pay in a rural population in West Africa. Social Science and Medicine 56 (2003) 2181-2189
9. Farrar S., Ryan M., Ross D., and Ludbrook A. Using discrete choice modelling in priority setting: an application to clinical service developments. Social Science and Medicine 50 (2000) 63-75
10. Johnson, F.R., McNair, D.J., Fries, E.E., 1997. Ill-considered values: contingent valuation in light of evidence from multiple-response stated-preference surveys. Triangle Economic Research (TER) Working Paper No. T-9703. Triangle Economic Research, Durham, NC.
11. Klose T. The contingent valuation method in health care. Health Policy 47 (1999) 97-123
12. Leggett C.G., Kleckner N.S., Boyle K.J., Duffield J., and Mitchell R.C. Social desirability bias in contingent valuation survey administered through in-person interviews. Land Economics 79 (2003) 561-575
13. Lenert L.A., Sturley A., and Rupnow M. Toward improved methods for measurement of utility: automated repair of errors in elicitations. Medical Decision Making 23 (2003) 67-75
14. Lloyd A.J. Threats to the estimation of benefit: are preference elicitation methods accurate?. Health Economics 12 (2003) 393-402
15. Miguel F.S., Ryan M., and Scott A. Are preferences stable? The case of health care. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 48 (2002) 1-14
16. Oliver A. Complete preferences over health states: a reply to the paper by Shiell et al. Health Economics 9 (2000) 727-728
17. Payne J.W., Bettman J.R., and Schkade D.A. Measuring constructed preferences: towards a building code. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 19 (1999) 243-270
18. Phillips K.A., Maddala T., and Johnson F.R. Measuring preferences for health care interventions using conjoint analysis: an application to HIV testing. Health Services Research 37 (2002) 1681-1705
19. Ratcliffe J. Public preferences for the allocation of donor liver grafts for transplantation. Health Economics 9 (2000) 137-148
20. Ratcliffe J., and Buxton M. Patients' preferences regarding the process and outcomes of life-saving technology. An application of conjoint analysis to liver transplantation. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 15 (1999) 340-351
21. Ratcliffe J., and Longworth L. Investigating the structural reliability of a discrete choice experiment within health technology assessment. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 18 (2002) 139-144
22. Roberts T., Bryan S., Heginbotham C., and McCallum A. Public involvement in health care priority setting: an economic perspective. Health Expectations 2 (1999) 235-244
23. Ruby, M.C., Johnson, F.R., Mathews, K.E., 1998. Just say No: Opt-out al ternatives and anglers' stated preferences. TER General Working Paper No. T-9801R. Triangle Economic Research, Durham, NC.
24. Ryan M., and Bate A. Testing the assumptions of rationality, continuity and symmetry when applying discrete choice experiments in health care. Applied Economics Letters 8 (2001) 59-63
25. Ryan M., and Miguel F.S. Revisiting the axiom of completeness in health care. Health Economics 12 (2003) 295-307
26. Ryan M., Scott D.A., Reeves C., Bate A., van Teijlingen E.R., Russell E.M., Napper M., and Robb C.M. Eliciting public preferences for healthcare: a systematic review of techniques. Health Technology Assessment 5 (2001) 1-186
27. Schwappach D.L. Does it matter who you are or what you gain? An experimental study of preferences for resource allocation. Health Economics 12 (2003) 255-267
28. Schwappach D.L. Resource allocation, social values and the QALY: a review of the debate and empirical evidence. Health Expectations 5 (2002) 210-222
29. Schwappach D.L.B. Are preferences for equality a matter of perspective?. Medical Decision Making 25 (2005) 449-459
30. Schwappach D.L.B., and Koeck C.M. Improving patient-provider communications: a web-access national health care survey panel. Health Expectations 6 (2003) 269-272
31. Sculpher M., Bryan S., Fry P., de Winter P., Payne H., and Emberton M. Patients' preferences for the management of non-metastatic prostate cancer: discrete choice experiment. British Medical Journal 328 (2004) 382
32. Shavelson R.J., and Webb N.M. Generalizability Theory. A Primer (1991), Sage, Thousand Oaks
33. Shiell A., Hawe P., and Fletcher M. Reliability of health utility measures and a test of values clarification. Social Science and Medicine 56 (2003) 1531-1541
34. Shiell A., Hawe P., and Seymour J. Will our understanding of completeness ever be complete?. Health Economics 9 (2000) 729-731
35. Shiell A., Seymour J., Hawe P., and Cameron S. Are preferences over health states complete?. Health Economics 9 (2000) 47-55
36. StataCorp. Stata Statistical Software: Release 8.0 (2003), Stata Corporation, College Station, TX
37. Streiner D.L., and Norman G.R. Health measurement scales. A Practical Guide to their Development and Use (2003), Oxford University Press, Oxford
38. Theobald A. The World Wide Web as a Survey Tool (2000), Deutscher Universitäts-Verlag, Wiesbaden (in German)
39. Wooldridge J.M. Introductory Econometrics. A Modern Approach (2000), South-Western Publishing, New York