Examining the attitudes and preferences of health care decision-makers in relation to access, equity and cost-effectiveness: A discrete choice experiment

Health Policy

Volumn 90, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 45-57

  Ratcliffe, Julie ^a   Bekker, Hilary L ^b   Dolan, Paul ^c   Edlin, Richard ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA   (Australia)

^b UNIVERSITY OF LEEDS   (United Kingdom)

^c IMPERIAL COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Access; Attitudes; Cost effectiveness; Discrete choice experiment; Equity; Health care decision makers

Indexed keywords

ADULT; CHOICE BEHAVIOR; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; GREAT BRITAIN; HEALTH SERVICES ACCESSIBILITY; HEALTHCARE DISPARITIES; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; QUESTIONNAIRES; STATE MEDICINE;

EID: 61849176098     PISSN: 01688510     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2008.09.001     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Department of Health. A first class service, quality in the new NHS. HMSO; London, 1998.
2. Department of Health. The NHS plan: a plan for investment. A plan for reform. HMSO; London, 2000.
3. Ryan M., and Farrar S. Using conjoint analysis to elicit preferences for health care. British Medical Journal 320 (2000) 1530-1533
4. Hjelmgren J., and Anell A. Population preferences and choice of primary care models: a discrete choice experiment in Sweden. Health Policy 83 (2007) 314-322
5. Farrar S., Ryan M., Ross D., and Ludbrook A. Using discrete choice modelling in priority setting: an application to clinical service developments. Social Science and Medicine 50 (2000) 63-75
6. Bech M. Politicians' and hospital managers' trade offs in the choice of reimbursement scheme: a discrete choice experiment. Health Policy 66 (2003) 261-275
7. Louviere J., Hensher D., and Swait J. Stated choice methods: analysis and application (2000), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
8. Lloyd A. Threats to the estimation of benefits: are preference elicitation methods accurate?. Health Economics 12 (2003) 393-402
9. Scott A. Identifying and analysing dominant preferences in discrete choice experiments: an application in health care. Journal of Economic Psychology 23 (2002) 383-398
10. Ryan M., McIntosh E., Dean T., and Old P. Trade offs between location and waiting times in the provision of health care: the case of elective surgery on the Isle of Wight. Journal of Public Health Medicine 22 (2000) 202-210
11. Miguel F., Ryan M., and Amaya-Amaya M. Irrational stated preferences: a quantitative and qualitative investigation. Health Economics 14 (2005) 307-322
12. Cairns J., and Van der Pol M. Repeated follow up as a method for reducing non-trading behaviour in discrete choice experiments. Social Science and Medicine 58 (2004) 2211-2218
13. Mansely E., and Elbasha E. Preferences and person trade offs: forcing consistency or inconsistency in health related quality of life measures. Health Economics 12 (2003) 187-198
14. Bekker H.L., Hewison J., and Thornton J. Understanding why decision aids work: linking process and outcome. Patient Education and Counselling 50 (2003) 323-329
15. Wong S.S.M., Thornton J.G., Gbolade B., and Bekker H.L. A randomised controlled trial of a decision aid leaflet to facilitate women's choice between pregnancy termination methods. British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 113 (2006) 688-695
16. Dolan P, Bekker H, Brennan A, Edlin R, Goyder L, Kennedy S, Michaels J, Murray C, Payne N, Ratcliffe J, Roberts J, Oluboyede Y, Shickle D, Tsuchiya A. The relative importance attached to access, equity and cost-effectiveness by people and organisations providing health services. Final report to the Department of Health, April 2006.
17. Robson C. Real world research: a resource for social scientists and practitioner-researchers. 2nd ed. (2002), Blackwell, Oxford
18. Dolan P., and Shaw R. A note on the relative importance that people attach to different factors when setting priorities in health care. Health Expectations 6 (2003) 53-59
19. National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal (2004), National Institute of Clinical Excellence, London
20. Huber J., and Zwerina K. The importance of utility balance in efficient choice designs. Journal of Marketing Research 33 (1996) 307-317
21. Propper C. The disutility of time spent on NHS waiting lists. The Journal of Human Resources 30 (1995) 677-700
22. Harrison R.A., and Cock D. Increasing response to a postal survey of sedentary patients-a randomised controlled trial. Health Services Research 4 November 10 (1) (2004) 31
23. Hoffman S.C., Burke A.E., Helzlsouer K.J., and Comstock G.W. Controlled trial of the effect of length, incentives, and follow-up techniques on response to a mailed questionnaire. American Journal of Epidemiology 148 November 15 (10) (1998) 1007-1011
24. Chaiken S. Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 39 (1980) 752-766