Principle, strengths and weaknesses of discrete choice modelling for eliciting public preferences for health care;Principe, intérêts et limites de la méthode des choix discrets pour la révélation des préférences en santé

Revue d'Epidemiologie et de Sante Publique

Volumn 55, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 133-139

  Berchi, C ^a   Launoy, G ^a  

^a INSERM   (France)

Author keywords

Discrete choice modelling; Health economics; Preferences elicitation

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; DEVELOPING COUNTRY; FRANCE; HEALTH CARE; HUMAN; MEDICAL INFORMATION; MEDICAL RESEARCH; METHODOLOGY;

CHOICE BEHAVIOR; CONSUMER SATISFACTION; DELIVERY OF HEALTH CARE; HEALTH SERVICES NEEDS AND DEMAND; HUMANS; MODELS, THEORETICAL;

EID: 34247331016     PISSN: 03987620     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.respe.2006.11.002     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Drummond M.F., O'Brien B., Stoddart G.L., et al. Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes (1997), Oxford University Press
2. CES (Collège des économistes de la santé). Guide méthodologique pour l'évaluation économique des stratégies de santé, 2003. En ligne sur le site Internet du CES : http://perso.wanadoo.fr/ces/.
3. Propper C. Contingent valuation of time spent on National Health Service waiting lists. Econ. J. 100 (1991) 193-199
4. Ryan M., and Hughes J. Using conjoint analysis to assess women's preferences for miscarriage management. Health Econ. 6 (1997) 261-273
5. Farrar S., Ryan M., Ross D., and Ludbrook A. Using discrete choice modelling in priority setting: an application to clinical service developments. Soc. Sci. Med. 50 (2000) 63-75
6. Gyrd-Hansen D., and Sogaard J. Analysing public preferences for cancer screening programmes. Health Econ. 10 (2001) 617-634
7. Gyrd-Hansen D., and Slothuus U. The citizen's preferences for financing public health care: a Danish survey. Int. J. Health Care Finance Econ. 2 1 (2002) 25-36
8. Scott A., and Vick S. Patients, doctors and contracts: an application of principal-agent theory to the doctor-patient relationship. Scott. J. Polit. Econ. 46 (1999) 111-134
9. Scott A. Eliciting GPs' preferences for pecuniary and non-pecuniary job characteristics. J. Health Econ. 20 (2001) 329-347
10. Cattin P., and Wittink D. Commercial use of conjoint analysis: a survey. J. Mark. 46 (1982) 44-53
11. Louvière J.J., Hensher D.A., and Swait J.D. Stated Choice Methods (2000), Analysis and Application. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK
12. Beggs S., and Cardell S. Assessing the potential demand for electric cars. J. Econ. 16 (1981) 1-19
13. Hanley N., McMillan D., Wright R.E., et al. Contingent valuation versus choice experiments: estimating the benefits of environmentally sensitive areas in Scotland. J. Agric. Econ. 49 (1998) 1-15
14. Lancaster K. A new approach to consumer theory. J. Polit. Econ. 74 (1966) 134-157
15. Peitz M. Utility maximisation in models of discrete choice. Econ. Lett. 49 (1995) 91-94
16. Thurstone L. A law of comparative judgement. Psychol. Rev. 34 (1927) 273-286
17. McFadden D. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behaviour. In: Zarembka P. (Ed). Frontiers in econometrics (1974), Academic Press, New York
18. o 114 (2000)
19. Chapman R.G., and Staelin R. Exploiting rank ordered choice set data within the stochastic utility model. J. Mark. Res. XIX (1982) 288-301
20. McClain J.O., and Rao V.R. Trade-offs and conflicts in evaluation of health system alternatives: methodology for analysis. Health Serv. Res. 9 (1974) 35-52
21. Slothuus U., Larsen M.L., and Junker P. The contingent ranking method- a feasible and valid method when eliciting preferences for health care?. Soc. Sci. Med. 54 (2002) 1601-1609
22. Farrar S., and Ryan M. Response ordering effects: a methodological issue in conjoint analysis. Health Econ. 8 (1999) 75-79
23. Gremy J.P. La formulation des questions d'enquête : son effet sur les réponses dans In La qualité de l'information dans les enquêtes (1992), Dunod, Paris
24. Ryan M., Scott D.A., and Donaldson C. Valuing health care using willingness to pay: a comparison of the payment card and dichotomous choice methods. J. Health Econ. 23 (2004) 237-258
25. Frew E., Whynes D., and Wolstenholme J. Eliciting willingness to pay: comparing closed-ended with open-ended and payment scale formats. Med Dec Making 23 (2003) 150-159
26. Ryan M. A comparison of stated preference methods for estimating monetary values. Health Econ. 13 (2004) 291-296
27. Ryan M., Watson V., and Amaya-Amaya M. Methodological issues in the monetary valuation of benefits in healthcare. Expert Rev Pharmacoeconomics Outcomes Res 3 6 (2003) 717-727
28. Drakopoulos S.A. Hierarchical choice in economics. J. Econ. Surv. 8 2 (1994) 133-153
29. Truong T.P., and Hensher D.A. Measurement of travel time values and opportunity cost from a discrete choice model. Econ. J. 95 (1985) 438-451
30. Swait J., Adamovicz W., Hannemann M., et al. Context dependence and aggregation in disaggregate choice analysis. Market Lett 13 3 (2002) 195-205
31. San Miguel F., Ryan M., and Scott A. Are preferences stable: the case of healthcare?. J. Econ. Behav Org 48 (2002) 1-14
32. Watson V, Ryan M, Watson E. Testing the validity of discrete choice experiments: evidence from a Chlamydia screening study. Health Economists Study Group Meeting. Leeds, UK, January 2003.