The effect of medical experience on the economic evaluation of health policies. A discrete choice experiment

Social Science and Medicine

Volumn 63, Issue 2, 2006, Pages 512-524

  Araña, Jorge E ^a   León, Carmelo J ^a   Quevedo, Jose L ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LAS PALMAS DE GRAN CANARIA   (Spain)

Author keywords

Cervical cancer; Discrete choice experiments; Health values; Information; Medical experience.

Indexed keywords

EXPERIMENTAL STUDY; HEALTH IMPACT; POLICY STRATEGY;

ADULT; ARTICLE; CANCER SCREENING; CONTROLLED STUDY; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HUMAN; MEDICAL PRACTICE; MEDICAL STUDENT; PHYSICIAN; UTERINE CERVIX CANCER;

ADULT; CHOICE BEHAVIOR; CLINICAL COMPETENCE; COSTS AND COST ANALYSIS; DATA COLLECTION; FEMALE; HEALTH POLICY; HUMANS; MASS SCREENING; MEDICAL ONCOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; STUDENTS; UTERINE CERVICAL NEOPLASMS;

EID: 33646845425     PISSN: 02779536     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2005.12.008     Document Type: Article

References (12)

1. Berwick B.M., and Weinstein M.C. What do patients value? Willingness to pay for ultrasound in normal pregnancy. Medical Care 23 7 (1985) 881-893
2. Cairns J., and Shackley P. Sometimes sensitive, seldom specific: A review of economics of screening. Health Economics 2 (1993) 43-53
3. Carlsson F., and Martinsson P. Design techniques for stated preference methods in health economics. Health Economics (2003) 281-294
4. Huber J., and y Zwerina K. The importance of utility balance in efficient choice designs. Journal of Marketing Research 33 (1996) 307-317
5. Munro A., and Hanley N. Information, uncertainty and contingent valuation. In: Bateman I.J., and Willis K.G. (Eds). Valuing environmental preferences (1999), Oxford University Press, Oxford 258-279
6. Protière C., Donaldson C., Luchini S., Moatti J.P., and Shackley P. The impact of information on non-health attributes on willingness to pay for multiple health care programmes. Social Science and Medicine 58 (2004) 1257-1269
7. Ryan M., and Bate A. Testing the assumptions of rationality, continuity and symmetry when applying discrete choice experiments in health care. Applied Economic Letters 8 (2001) 59-63
8. Ryan M., and Hughes J. Using conjoint analysis to value surgical versus medical management of miscarriage. Health Economics 6 (1997) 261-273
9. San Miguel R., Ryan M., and Mcintosh E. Applying conjoint analysis in economic evaluations: An application to Menorraghia. Applied Economics 32 (1999) 822-833
10. Swait J., and Louviere J. The role of the scale parameter in the estimation and comparison of multinomial logit models. Journal of Marketing Research 30 (1993) 305-314
11. Train K. Discrete choice methods with simulation (2002), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
12. Wit G.A., Busschbach J.J., and Charro F.T. Sensitivity and perspective in the valuation of health status: Whose values count?. Health Economics 9 2 (2000) 109-126