Patient preferences for depression treatment programs and willingness to pay for treatment

Journal of Mental Health Policy and Economics

Volumn 10, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 73-85

  Morey, Edward ^a   Thacher, Jennifer A ^b   Craighead, W Edward ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO   (United States)

^c EMORY UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANTIDEPRESSANT AGENT;

ADULT; AGE DISTRIBUTION; ARTICLE; BODY MASS; CLINICAL EFFECTIVENESS; CONTROLLED STUDY; DISEASE SEVERITY; FAMILY SIZE; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE COST; HEALTH CARE UTILIZATION; HEALTH PROGRAM; HEALTH SURVEY; HUMAN; INCOME; LIBIDO DISORDER; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MAJOR DEPRESSION; MALE; MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD METHOD; ORGASM DISORDER; PATIENT DECISION MAKING; PSYCHOTHERAPY; RISK MANAGEMENT; SAMPLE SIZE; SEX DIFFERENCE; SIDE EFFECT; STATISTICAL MODEL; TREATMENT DURATION; WEIGHT GAIN;

ADULT; AGE FACTORS; ANTIDEPRESSIVE AGENTS; CHOICE BEHAVIOR; DEPRESSIVE DISORDER, MAJOR; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE COSTS; HUMANS; IMPOTENCE; MALE; MENTAL HEALTH; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PSYCHOTHERAPY; SEVERITY OF ILLNESS INDEX; SEX FACTORS; SOCIOECONOMIC FACTORS; TIME FACTORS; WEIGHT GAIN;

EID: 34447329842     PISSN: 10914358     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. American Psychiatric Association and Task Force on DSM-IV. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders: DSM-IV. Washington DC: American Psychiatric Association, 4th edition, 1994.
2. Murray C, Lopez A. The Global Burden of Disease: a Comprehensive Assessment of Mortality and Disability from Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors in 1990 and Projected to 2020. World Health Organization and World Bank: Global Burden of Disease and Injury Series 1996; 1.
3. Greenburg P, Stiglin L, Finklestein S, Berndt E. The economic burden of depression in 1990. J Clin Psych 1993; 54: 405-418.
4. Sobocki P, Jönsson B, Angst J, Rehnberg C. Cost of depression in Europe. J Ment Health Policy Econ 2006; 9(2): 87-98.
5. Berto P, D'Ilario D, Ruffo P, Di Virgilio R, Rizzo F. Depression: cost-of-illness studies in the international literature, a review. J Ment Health Policy Econ 2000; 3(1): 3-10.
6. Wells K, Sherbourne C. Functioning and utility for current health of patients with depression or chronic medical conditions in managed primary care practices. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1999; 56: 897-904.
7. Lenert L, Sherbourne C, Sugar C, Wells K. Estimation of utilities for the effects of MDD from the SF-12. Med Care 2000; 38(7): 763-770.
8. Revicki D, Wood M. Patient-assigned health state utilities for depression-related outcomes: differences by depression severity and antidepressant medications. J Affect Disord 1998; 48: 25-36.
9. Louviere J. Conjoint analysis: introduction and overview. J Transp Econ Pol 1988; 10: 93-119.
10. Green P, Srinivasan V. Conjoint analysis in marketing: new developments with implications for research and practice. J Mark 1990; 54(4): 3-19.
11. Adamowicz W, Louviere J, Swait J. Introduction to attribute-based stated choice methods. Technical report, NOAA, 1998.
12. Healey A, Chisholm D. Willingness to pay as a measure of the benefits of mental health care. J Ment Health Policy Econ 1999; 2: 55-58.
13. O'Brien B, Novosel S, Torrance G, Streiner D. Assessing the economic value of a new anti-depressant: a willingness-to-pay approach. Pharmacoeconomics 1995; 8(1): 34-45.
14. Dwight-Johnson M, Sherbourne C, Liao D, Wells K. Treatment preferences among depressed primary care patients. J Gen Intern Med 2000; 15: 527-534.
15. Mulvaney-Day NE. Using willingness to pay to measure family members' preferences in mental health. J Ment Health Policy Econ 2005; 8(2): 71-81.
16. Lin E, VonKorrff M, Katon W, Bush T, Simon G, Walker E, Robinson P. The role of the primary care physician in patients' adherence to antidepressant therapy. Med Care 1995; 33: 67-74.
17. Berndt ER, Bhattacharjya A, Mishol DN, Arcelus A, Lasky T. An analysis of the diffusion of new antidepressants: variety, quality, and marketing efforts. J Ment Health Policy Econ 2002; 5(1): 3-19.
18. Kessler RC, Berglund P, Demler O, Jin R, Koretz D, Merikangas KR, Rush AJ, Walters EE, Wang PS. The epidemiology of Major Depressive Disorder: results from the National Comorbidity Survey Replication (NCS-R). J Am Med Assoc 2003; 289(23): 3095-3105.
19. Huber J, Zwerina K. The importance of utility balance in efficient choice designs. J Mark Res 1996; 33: 307-317.
20. Kuhfeld W. Marketing research methods in SAS: Experimental design, choice, conjoint, and graphical techniques. Technical report, SAS Institute, Inc., 2005.
21. McFadden D. 1974. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. In Frontiers in Econometrics, 105-142. New York, NY: Academic Press.
22. Ben-Akiva M, Lerman S. Discrete Choice Analysis: Theory and Application to Travel Demand. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1985.
23. Green W. Econometric Analysis. New York, NY: Maxwell MacMillan International, 2000.
24. Aptech Systems I. GAUSS, volume 3.2. Maple Valley, 1995.
25. Loewenstein G, O'Donoghue T, Rabin M. Projection bias in predicting future utility. Quart J Econ 2003; 118(4): 1209-1248.
26. Breffle W, Morey E. Investigating preference heterogeneity in a repeated discrete-choice recreation demand model of Atlantic salmon fishing. Marine Resource Economics 2000; 15: 1-20.
27. Provencher B, Baerenklau K, Bishop R. A finite mixture logit model of recreational angling with serially correlated random utility. Am J Agric Econ 2002; 84(4): 1066-1075.
28. Ben-Akiva M, Mcfadden D, Train K, Walker J, Bhat C, Bierlaire M, Bolduc D, Boersch-Supan A, Brownstone D, Bunch D, et al. Hybrid choice models: Progress and challenges. Marketing Letters 2002; 13(3): 163-175.
29. Walker J. The mixed logit (or logit kernel) model: Dispelling misconceptions of identification. Transportation Research Record 2002; 86-98.