Patient preferences for direct hearing aid provision by a private dispenser. A discrete choice experiment

Ear and Hearing

Volumn 29, Issue 4, 2008, Pages 557-564

  Grutters, Janneke P C ^a,c   Joore, Manuela A ^a   Kessels, Alfons G H ^a   Davis, Adrian C ^b   Anteunis, Lucien J C ^a  

^a MAASTRICHT UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER   (United Kingdom)

^c MAASTRO CLINIC   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGE; AGED; ARTICLE; CONSULTATION; EDUCATIONAL STATUS; EXPERIENCE; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; HEALTH CARE COST; HEALTH CARE NEED; HEARING AID; HEARING IMPAIRMENT; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MEDICAL SPECIALIST; PATIENT DECISION MAKING; PATIENT SELECTION; QUESTIONNAIRE; SEX DIFFERENCE; ADOLESCENT; AUDIOLOGY; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DECISION MAKING; ECONOMICS; HEARING TEST; MIDDLE AGED; NETHERLANDS; ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT; OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY; PATHOPHYSIOLOGY; PATIENT ATTITUDE; PATIENT REFERRAL; PERCEPTION DEAFNESS; PRESBYACUSIS; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; AUDIOLOGY; CHOICE BEHAVIOR; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; FEMALE; HEARING AIDS; HEARING LOSS, SENSORINEURAL; HEARING TESTS; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NETHERLANDS; OTOLARYNGOLOGY; PATIENT ACCEPTANCE OF HEALTH CARE; PRESBYCUSIS; PRIVATE SECTOR; REFERRAL AND CONSULTATION;

EID: 54049101160     PISSN: 01960202     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/AUD.0b013e3181734a19     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Abdelkader, M., McEwan, M., & Cooke, L. (2004). Prospective evaluation of the value of direct referral hearing aid clinic in management of young patients with bilateral hearing loss. Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci, 29(3), 206-209. (Pubitemid 38686068)
2. AZOS Working Group. (2006). Final report AZOS. Diemen: Health Care Insurance Board (in Dutch).
3. British Academy of Audiology. (2006). NHS audiology - building the service. British Academy of Audiology. Available at: http://www.baaudiology.org/ Correspondence/SubmissionITCetc.pdf. Accessed April 22, 2008.
4. Davis, A. C. (1995). Hearing in adults. London: Whurr Publishers Ltd.
5. Drummond, M. F., Sculpher, M. J., & Torrance, G. W., et al. (2005). Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. New York: Oxford University Press.
6. Hanemann, W. M., & Kanninen, B. (1998). The statistical analysis of discrete-response CV data. Berkeley: Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Policy.
7. Health Committee. (2007a). Health - written evidence. The United Kingdom Parliament. Available at: http://www.publications. parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/ cmselect/cmhealth/392/392we01.htm. Accessed April 22, 2008.
8. Health Committee. (2007b). New inquiry and terms of reference: audiology. The United Kingdom Parliament. Available at: http://www.parliament.uk/ parliamentary-committees/health- committee/hcpn070112.cfm. Accessed April 22, 2008.
9. Huber, J., & Zwerina, K. (1996). The importance of utility balance in efficient choice designs. J Mark Res, 33, 307-317. (Pubitemid 126109236)
10. Kjaer, T., Bech, M., Gyrd-Hansen, D., et al. (2006). Ordering effect and price sensitivity in discrete choice experiments: need we worry? Health Econ, 15(11), 1217-1228. (Pubitemid 44696949)
11. Koay, C. B., & Sutton, G. J. (1996). Direct hearing aid referrals: a prospective study. Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci, 21(2), 142-146.
12. Lancsar, E., & Louviere, J. (2006). Deleting 'irrational' responses from discrete choice experiments: a case of investigating or imposing preferences? Health Econ, 15(8), 797-811. (Pubitemid 44184131)
13. Louviere, J. J., Hensher, D. A., & Swait, J. D. (2000). Stated choice methods: analysis and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
14. Meister, H., Lausberg, I., Walger, M., et al. (2001). Using conjoint analysis to examine the importance of hearing aid attributes. Ear Hear, 22(2), 142-150. (Pubitemid 32290039)
15. Oostenbrink, J. B., Koopmanschap, M. A., & Rutten, F. F. H. (2004). Manual for costing research. Amstelveen: College voor zorgverzekeringen (in Dutch).
16. Ratcliffe, J., & Buxton, M. (1999). Patients' preferences regarding the process and outcomes of life-saving technology. An application of conjoint analysis to liver transplantation. Int J Technol Assess Health Care, 15(2), 340-351. (Pubitemid 29380444)
17. Ratcliffe, J., & Longworth, L. (2002). Investigating the structural reliability of a discrete choice experiment within health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care, 18(1), 139-144. (Pubitemid 34408536)
18. Ryan, M. (2004). Discrete choice experiments in health care. Br Med J, 328(7436), 360-361. (Pubitemid 38241179)
19. Ryan, M., & Farrar, S. (2000). Using conjoint analysis to elicit preferences for health care. Br Med J, 320(7248), 1530-1533. (Pubitemid 30330316)
20. Ryan, M., & Gerard, K. (2003). Using discrete choice experiments to value health care programmes: current practice and future research reflections. Appl Health Econ Health Policy, 2(1), 55-64.
21. Ryan, M., & Hughes, J. (1997). Using conjoint analysis to assess women's preferences for miscarriage management. Health Econ, 6(3), 261-273. (Pubitemid 27296590)
22. Ryan, M., Major, K., & Skatun, D. (2005). Using discrete choice experiments to go beyond clinical outcomes when evaluating clinical practice. J Eval Clin Pract, 11(4), 328-338. (Pubitemid 41059314)
23. Ryan, M. D., Scott, A., & Reeves, C., et al. (2001). Eliciting public preferences for healthcare: a systematic review of techniques. Health Technol Assess, 5(5), 1-186. (Pubitemid 32279861)
24. Salkeld, G., Ryan, M., & Short, L. (2000). The veil of experience: do consumers prefer what they know best? Health Econ, 9(3), 267-270. (Pubitemid 30248644)
25. Street, D. J., Burgess, L., & Louviere, J. J. (2005). Quick and easy choice sets: constructing optimal and nearly optimal stated choice experiments. Int J Res Mark, 22(4), 459-470. (Pubitemid 43045893)
26. Swan, I. R., & Browning, G. G. (1994). A prospective evaluation of direct referral to audiology departments for hearing aids. J Laryngol Otol, 108(2), 120-124.
27. The British Society of Hearing Aid Audiologists. (2005). Audiological provision in Europe. A public-private partnership? London: BSHAA Council.
28. Train, K. E. (2003). Discrete choice methods with simulation. Cambridge: University Press.
29. Valente, M. (2006). Guideline for audiologic management of the adult patient. Available at: http://www.audiologyonline.com/ articles/pf-article- detail.asp?article-id=1716. Accessed April 22, 2008.
30. Van der Velden, L. J. F., & Hingstman, L. (2000). Demand estimate ENT-specialists, 1999-2010. Utrecht: Nivel (in Dutch).
31. Veldhuizen, J. A., Theunissen, E. J. J. M., & Dreschler, W. A. (2002). The NOAH protocol hearing aid provision. Leiden: Nationaal Overleg Audiologische Hulpmiddelen (in Dutch, available upon request from the author).
32. Walton, S. M., Graves, P. E., Mueser, P. R., et al. (2002). The bias against new innovations in health care: value uncertainty and willingness to pay. Value Health, 5(2), 67-70.