Using discrete choice experiments within a cost-benefit analysis framework: Some considerations

PharmacoEconomics

Volumn 24, Issue 9, 2006, Pages 855-868

  McIntosh, Emma ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ACCOUNTING; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DECISION MAKING; EXPERIMENTAL STUDY; HEALTH CARE; INCOME; MEDICAL RESEARCH; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROBABILITY; REVIEW; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; UNCERTAINTY; VALIDITY;

ADVISORY COMMITTEES; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; ECONOMICS, PHARMACEUTICAL; HEALTH SERVICES; HUMANS;

EID: 33746298854     PISSN: 11707690     EISSN: 11707690     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2165/00019053-200624090-00004     Document Type: Review

References (63)

1. Kleinman L, McIntosh E, Ryan M, et al. Willingness to pay for complete symptom relief of gastroesophogeal reflux disease. Arch Intern Med 2002; 162: 1361-6
2. 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: 367-82
3. Ryan M, McIntosh E, Dean T, et al. Trade-offs between location and waiting time in the provision of elective surgery. J Public Health Med 2000; 22: 202-10
4. McIntosh E, Donaldson C, Ryan M. Recent advances in the methods of cost-benefit analysis in healthcare: matching the art to the science. Pharmacoeconomics 1999; 15: 357-67
5. Hanson K, McPake B, Nakamba P, et al. Preferences for hospital quality in Zambia: results from a discrete choice experiment. Health Econ 2005; 14: 687-701
6. Slothuus Skjoldborg U, Gyrd-Hansen D. Conjoint analysis: the cost variable: an Achilles' heel? Health Econ 2003; 12: 479-91
7. Ryan M, Gerard K. Using discrete choice experiments in health economics: current practice and future prospects. Health Econ 2003; 2 (1): 55-64
8. Lancsar E, Savage E. Deriving welfare measures from discrete choice experiments: inconsistency between current methods and random utility and welfare theory. Health Econ 2004; 13: 901-7
9. Lancsar E, Savage E. Deriving welfare measures from discrete choice experiments: a response to Ryan and Santos Silva. Health Econ 2004; 13: 919-24
10. Ryan M. Deriving welfare measures in discrete choice experiments: a comment to Lancsar and Savage (1). Health Econ 2004; 13: 909-12
11. Ratcliffe J. The use of conjoint analysis to elicit willingness-to-pay values: proceed with caution? Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2000 Winter; 16: 270-5
12. Santos Silva JMC. Deriving welfare measures in discrete choice experiments: a comment to Lancsar and Savage (2). Health Econ 2004; 13: 913-8
13. Clarke P. Cost-benefit analysis and mammographic screening: a travel cost approach. J Health Econ 1998; 17: 767-87
14. Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Torrance GW, et al. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005
15. Cookson R. Willingness to pay methods in health care: a sceptical view. Health Econ 2003; 12: 891-4
16. Oliver A, Healey A, Donaldson C. Choosing the method to match the perspective: economic assessment and its implications for health services efficiency. Lancet 2002; 359: 1771-4
17. Ryan M. Discrete choice experiments in health care. BMJ 2004; 328: 360-1
18. Louviere J, Hensher DA, Swait J. Stated choice methods: analysis and application. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000
19. Adamovicz WL, Louviere J, Swait J. Introduction to attribute based stated choice methods. Submitted to Resource Valuation Branch Damage Assessment Center, NOAA -National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, US Department of Commerce. 1998 Jan [online]. Available from URL: http://www.nero.noaa.gov/hcd/ socio/statedchoicemethods.pdf [Accessed 2006 Jun 20]
20. Ryan M. Using willingness to pay to assess the benefits of assisted reproductive techniques. Health Econ 1996; 5: 543-58
21. McIntosh E. Using discrete choice experiments to value the benefits of health care [thesis]. Aberdeen: University of Aberdeen, 2003: 1-290
22. Donaldson C, Currie G, Mitton C. Cost effectiveness analysis in health care: contradictions. BMJ 2002; 325: 891-4
23. Briggs A, Fenn P. Confidence intervals or surfaces? Uncertainty on the cost-effectiveness plane. Health Econ 1998; 7: 723-40
24. Louviere J, Burgess L, Street D, et al. Modeling the choices of single individuals by combining efficient choice experiment designs with extra preference information. Centre for the Study of Choice (CenSoC). Working paper no. 04-005. Sydney (NSW): University of Technology, 2004
25. Stinnett AA, Mullahy J. Net health benefits: a new framework for the analysis of uncertainty in cost-effectiveness analysis. Med Decis Making 1998; 18: 65S-80S
26. Polsky D, Glick H, Willke R, et al. Confidence intervals for cost-effectiveness ratios: a comparison of four methods. Health Econ 1997; 6: 243-52
27. Fieller EC. Some problems on interval estimation with discussion. J R Stat Soc 1954; 16: 175-88
28. Kennedy P. A guide to econometrics. Oxford: Blackwells, 1995
29. Efron B. Bootstrap methods: another look at the jackknife. Ann Stat 1979; 7: 1-26
30. Claxton K, Sculpher MJ, McCabe C, et al. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis for NICE technology assessment: not an optional extra. Health Econ 2005; 14: 339-47
31. 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: 595-604
32. 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
33. Johnson FR, Desvousges WH, Ruby M, et al. Eliciting stated health preferences: an application to willingness to pay for longevity. Med Decis Making 1998; 18: Suppl. 2: 57-67
34. Magat WA, Viscusi WK, Huber J. Paired comparison and contingent valuation approaches to morbidity risk valuation. J Environ Econ Manage 1988; 15: 395-411
35. van der Pol M, Cairns J. Establishing patient preferences for blood transfusion support: an application of conjoint analysis. J Health Serv Res Policy 1998 Apr; 3: 70-6
36. Szeinbach SL, Barnes JH, McGhan WF, et al. Using maximum difference conjoint and visual analogue scaling to measure patients' utility for a particular health state. J Res Pharm Econ 1998; 9: 83-100
37. Freeman JK, Szeinbach SL, Barnes JH, et al. Assessing the need for student health services using maximum difference conjoint analysis. J Res Pharm Econ 1998; 9: 35-49
38. Anderson NH. An exchange on functional and conjoint measurement. Psychol Rev 1971; 77: 153-70
39. Chakraborty G, Ball D, Gaeth GJ, et al. The ability of ratings and choice conjoint to predict market shares: a Monte Carlo simulation. J Bus Res 2002; 55: 237-49
40. Reardon G, Pathak D. Segmenting the antihistamine market: an investigation of consumer preferences. J Health Care Mark 1990; 10: 23-33
41. Boyle KJ. A comparison of conjoint analysis response formats. Am J Agric Econ 2001; 83: 441-54
42. Huber J, Wittink DR, Fiedler JA, et al. The effectiveness of alternative elicitation procedures in predicting choice. J Mark Res 1993; 30: 105-14
43. Elrod T, Louviere JJ, Davey KS. An empirical comparison of ratings-based and choice-based conjoint models. J Mark Res 1992; 29: 368-77
44. Morey ER, Rowe RD, Watson M. A repeated nested-logit model of Atlantic salmon fishing. Am J Agric Econ 1993; 75: 578-92
45. Ryan M, Skatun D. Modelling non-demanders in choice experiments. Health Econ 2004; 13: 397-402
46. Small KA, Rosen HS. Applied welfare economics with discrete choice models. Econometrica 1981; 49: 105-30
47. Mitchell RC, Carson RT. Using surveys to value public goods: the contingent valuation method. Washington, DC: RFF Press, 1989
48. Ryan M, Gerard K. Using choice experiments to value health care programmes: where are we and where should we go? [abstract]. Third International Health Economics Association Conference; 2001 Jul 22-25; York
49. Ruby MC, Johnson FR, Mathews KE. Just say no: opt-out alternatives and anglers' stated-preferences. Technical working paper no. T-9801 R. Durham (NC): Triangle Economic Research, 1999
50. Hanemann WM. Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete responses. Am J Agric Econ 1984; 66: 332-41
51. Freeman AM. The measurement of environmental and resource values: theory and methods. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future, 1993
52. Tversky A, Kahneman D. Loss aversion in riskless choice: a reference dependent model. Q J Econ 1991; 106: 1039-61
53. Bateman IJ, Carson RT, Day B, et al. Economic valuation with stated preference: a manual. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2002
54. Roe B, Boyle KJ, Teisl MF. Using conjoint analysis to derive estimates of compensating variation. J Environ Econ Manage 1996; 31: 145-59
55. Pearmain D, Swanson J, Kroes E, et al. Stated preference techniques: a guide to practice. Hague: Steer Davis Gleave and Hague Consulting Group, 1991
56. Johnson FR, Desvousges WH. Estimating stated preferences with rated-pair data: environmental, health, and employment effects of energy programs. J Environ Econ Manage 1997; 34: 79-99
57. Carson RT, Louviere J, Anderson P, et al. Experimental analysis of choice. Marketing Letters 1994; 5: 351-67
58. Wathieu L. Consumer habituation. Manage Sci 2004; 50: 587-96
59. Bergland O, Magnussen K, Navrud S. Benefit transfer: testing for accuracy and reliability. Sixth Annual Conference of the European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists; 1995 Jun; Umea
60. Dolan P, Gudex C, Kind P, et al. A social tariff for EuroQol: results from a UK general population survey. Discussion paper no. 138. York: University of York, 1995
61. Morrison M, Bennett J, Blamey R, et al. Choice modeling and tests of benefit transfer. Am J Agric Econ 2002; 84: 161-70
62. Blackorby C, Donaldson D. The case against the use of the sum of compensating variations in cost-benefit analysis. Can J Econ 1990; 23: 471-94
63. McCormack K, Wake B, Perez J, et al. Laparoscopic surgery for inguinal hernia repair: systematic review of effectiveness and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess 2005; 9 (14): 1-218