Investigating Choice Experiments for Preferences of Older People (ICEPOP): Evaluative spaces in health economics

Journal of Health Services Research and Policy

Volumn 13, Issue SUPPL. 3, 2008, Pages 31-37

  Coast, Joanna ^a   Flynn, Terry ^b   Sutton, Eileen ^b   Al Janabi, Hareth ^b   Vosper, Jane ^b   Lavender, Sarita ^a   Louviere, Jordan ^c   Peters, Tim ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF BRISTOL   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY SYDNEY   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CAREGIVER; COST OF ILLNESS; DECISION MAKING; HEALTH ECONOMICS; HEALTH PROGRAM; HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH; INDIVIDUALITY; METHODOLOGY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PATIENT CARE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS; QUALITY OF LIFE; RATING SCALE; REVIEW;

CHOICE BEHAVIOR; GREAT BRITAIN; HUMANS; MIDDLE AGED; MODELS, ECONOMETRIC; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT; QUALITY-ADJUSTED LIFE YEARS; TERMINAL CARE;

EID: 57349134435     PISSN: 13558196     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1258/jhsrp.2008.008024     Document Type: Review

References (45)

1. Sugden R, Williams A. The Principles of Practical Cost-benefit Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1978
2. Culyer AJ. Commodities, characteristics of commodities, characteristics of people, utilities, and the quality of life. In: Baldwin S, ed. Quality of Life. Perspectives and Policies. London: Routledge, 1989:9-27
3. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. Report. London: NICE, 2004
4. Brooks R, EuroQol G. EuroQol: the current state of play. Health Pol 1996;37:53-72
5. Coast J. Is economic evaluation in touch with society's health values? BMJ 2004;329:1233-6
6. Glendinning C. Breaking down barriers: integrating health and social care services for older people in England. Health Pol 2003;65:139-51
7. Department of Health. National Service Framework for Older People. London: Department of Health, 2001
8. Gould N, Kendall T. Developing the NICE/SCIE guidelines for dementia care: the challenges of enhancing the evidence base for health and social care. Br J Soc Work 2007;37:475-90
9. Brazier J, Deverill M, Green C, Harper R, Booth A. A review of the use of health status measures in economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess 1999;3:1-164
10. Kaplan RM, Anderson JP. The quality of well-being scale: rationale for a single quality of life index. In: Walker SR, ed. Quality of Life: Assessment and Application. Lancaster: MTP Press Ltd, 1988:51-77
11. Kind P. The EuroQol Instrument: an index of health-related quality of life. In: Spilker B, ed. Quality of Life and Pharmacoeconomics in Clinical Trials. 2nd edn. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott-Raven Publishers, 1996:191-201
12. Haapaniemi TH, Sotaniemi KA, Sintonen H, Taimela E, EcoPD Study Group. The generic 15D instrument is valid and feasible for measuring health related quality of life in Parkinson's disease. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatr 2004;75:976-83
13. Feeny DH, Torrance GW, Furlong WJ. Health Utilities Index. In: Spilker B, ed. Quality of Life and Pharmacoeconomics in Clinical Trials. 2nd edn. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott-Raven Publishers, 1996:239-52
14. Brazier J, Roberts J, Deverill M. The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. J Health Econ 2002;21:271-92
15. Torrance GW, Feeny DH, Furlong WJ, Barr RD, Zhang Y, Wang Q. Multiattribute utility function for a comprehensive health status classification system. Health Utilities Index Mark 2. Med Care 1996;34:702-22
16. Louviere JJ, Hensher DA, Swait JD. Stated choice methods - analysis and application. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000
17. Coast J, Horrocks S. Developing attributes and levels for discrete choice experiments using qualitative methods. J Health Serv Res Pol 2007;12:25-30
18. Coast J, Peters TJ, Richards SH, Gunnell DJ. Use of the EuroQol among elderly acute care patients. Qual Life Res 1998;7:1-10
19. Ryan M. Using consumer preferences in health care decision making. The application of conjoint analysis. London: Office of Health Economics, 1996
20. Propper C. Contingent valuation of time spent on NHS waiting lists. Econ J 1990;100:193-9
21. Marley AAJ, Louviere JJ. Some probabilistic models of best, worst and best-worst choices. J Math Psychol 2005;49:464-80
22. Flynn TN, Louviere J, Peters T, Coast J. Best-worst scaling. What it can do for health care research and how to do it. J Health Econ 2007;26:171-89
23. Marley AAJ, Flynn TN, Louviere JJ. Probabalistic models of set-dependent and attribute-level best-worst choice. J Math Psychol (in press)
24. Grewal I, Lewis J, Flynn TN, Brown J, Bond J, Coast J. Developing attributes for a generic quality of life measure for older people: preferences or capabilities? Soc Sci Med 2006;62:1891-901
25. Sen A. Inequality Reexamined. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation, 1992
26. Sen A. Capability and well-being. In: Nussbaum MC, ed. The Quality of Life. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993:30-53
27. Sen A. Choice, Welfare and Measurement. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1982
28. Sen A. Rationality and Freedom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2002
29. Coast J, Flynn TN, Natarajan L, et al. Valuing the ICECAP capability index for older people. Soc Sci Med (in press)
30. Noblit G, Hare D. Meta-ethnography: Synthesizing Qualitative Studies. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1988
31. Al-Janabi H, Coast J, Flynn TN. What do people value when they provide unpaid care to an older person? A meta-ethnography with interview follow-up. Soc Sci Med 2008;67:111-21
32. Ritchie J, Spencer L, O'Connor W. Carrying out qualitative analysis. In: Ritchie J, Lewis J, eds. Qualitative Research Practice: A Guide for Social Science Students and Researchers. London: Sage, 2003:219-62
33. Salomon JA. Reconsidering the use of rankings in the valuation of health states: a model for estimating cardinal values from ordinal data. Population Health Metrics 2003;1:12
34. McCabe C, Brazier JE, Gilks P, et al. Using rank data to estimate health state utility models. J Health Econ 2006;26:171-89
35. McFadden D. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behaviour. In: Zarembka P, ed. Frontiers in Econometrics. New York, NY: Academic Press, 1974:105-42
36. Thurstone LL. A law of comparative judgement. Psychol Rev 1927;34:273-86
37. Szeinbach SL, Barnes JH, McGhan WF, Murawski MM, Corey R. Using conjoint analysis to evaluate health state preferences. Drug Inform J 1999;33:849-58
38. Coast J, Salisbury C, de Berker D, et al. Preferences for aspects of a dermatology consultation. Br J Dermatol 2006;155:387-92
39. Coast J, Flynn TN, Salisbury C, Louviere J, Peters TJ. Maximising responses to discrete choice experiments: a randomised trial. Appl Health Econ Health Pol 2006;5:249-60
40. Sculpher M, Gafni A. Recognizing diversity in public preferences: the use of preference sub-groups in cost-effectiveness analysis. Health Econ 2001;10:317-24
41. Roberts J, Dolan P. To what extent do people prefer health states with higher values? A note on evidence from the EQ-5D valuation set. Health Econ 2004;13:733-7
42. Louviere JJ, Burgess L, Street D. Modelling the choices of single individuals by combining efficient choice experiment designs with extra preference information. CenSoC working paper no. 04-005. Sydney: Centre for the Study of Choice, 2004
43. Sen A. Human rights and capabilities. J Hum Dev 2005;6:151-66
44. Robeyns I. The capability approach: a theoretical survey. J Hum Dev 2005;6:93-114
45. Hensher D, Louviere J, Swait J. Combining sources of preference data. J Econometrics 1999;89:197-221