Discrete choice experiments for complex health-care decisions: Does hierarchical information integration offer a solution?

Health Economics

Volumn 18, Issue 8, 2009, Pages 903-920

  Van Helvoort Postulart, Debby ^a   Dellaert, Benedict G C ^b   Van Der Weijden, Trudy ^c   Von Meyenfeldt, Maarten F ^a   Dirksen, Carmen D ^a  

^a MAASTRICHT UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^b ERASMUS UNIVERSITY ROTTERDAM   (Netherlands)

^c MAASTRICHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Discrete choice experiments; Hierarchical information integration; Integrated choice experiments; Multi faceted health care decisions

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; BREAST SURGERY; CLINICAL PROTOCOL; CONSTRUCT VALIDITY; HEALTH CARE MANAGEMENT; HUMAN; INFORMATION SYSTEM; INTERNAL CONSISTENCY; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL;

ADULT; CHOICE BEHAVIOR; FEMALE; HOSPITALIZATION; HUMANS; INFORMATION MANAGEMENT; MALE; MEDICAL STAFF, HOSPITAL; MIDDLE AGED; NETHERLANDS; PATIENT CARE; QUESTIONNAIRES; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS;

EID: 70349218769     PISSN: 10579230     EISSN: 10991050     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/hec.1411     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Adamowicz W, Bunch D, Cameron TA, Dellaert BGC, Hanneman M, Keane M, Louviere J, Meyer R, Steenburgh T, Swait J. 2008. Behavioral frontiers in choice modeling. Marketing Letters, forthcoming. DOI: 10.1007/ s11002-008-9038-1.
2. Bettman JR, Johnson EJ, Payne JW. 1990. A componential analysis of cognitive effort in choice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 45: 111-139.
3. Braithwaite D, Emery J, de Lusignan S, Sutton S. 2003. Using the Internet to conduct surveys of health professionals: a valid alternative? Family Practice 20: 545-551.
4. Brown SL, Kittleson MJ. 2005. E-mail versus Web survey response rates among health education professionals. American Journal of Health Studies 20(1): 7-14.
5. Bryan S, Dolan P. 2004. Discrete choice experiments in health economics: for better or for worse? European Journal of Health Economics 5: 199-202.
6. Farrar S, Ryan M, Ross D, Ludbrook A. 2000. Using discrete choice modelling in priority setting: an application to clinical service developments. Social Science and Medicine 50: 63-75.
7. Frotscher C, Beets G, Hebly M, Dirksen CD, Kessels A, Bemelmans M, Marcus M, Meyenfeldt von M. Breast cancer surgery in ambulatory setting: blessing or curse. submitted.
8. Green PE, Srinivasan V. 1990. Conjoint analysis in marketing: new developments with implications for research and practice. Journal of Marketing 54: 3-19.
9. Grol R, Wensing M, Eccles M. 2005. Improving Patient Care: The Implementation of Change in Clinical Practice. Elsevier: Oxford.
10. Lancsar E, Donaldson C. 2005. Discrete choice experiments in health economics: distinguishing between the method and its application. European Journal of Health Economics 6: 314-316.
11. Landis JR, Koch GG. 1977. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33: 159-174.
12. Louviere JJ. 1984. Hierarchical information integration: a new method for the design and analysis of complex multiattribute judgment problems. Advances in Consumer Research 11: 148-155.
13. Louviere JJ, Hensher DA, Swait JD. 2000. Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Application. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.
14. Louviere JJ, Timmermans HJP. 1990. Using hierarchical information integration to model consumer responses to possible planning actions: recreation destination choice illustration. Environment and Planning A 22: 291-308.
15. Louviere JJ, Timmermans HJP. 1992. Testing the external validity of hierarchical conjoint analysis models of recreational destination choice. Leisure Sciences 14: 179-194.
16. Louviere JJ, Woodworth G. 1983. Design and analysis of simulated consumer choice or allocation experiments: an approach based on aggregate data. Journal of Marketing Research 20: 350-367.
17. Molin EJE, Oppewal H, Timmermans HJP. 2001. Analyzing heterogeneity in conjoint estimates of residential preferences. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment 16: 267-284.
18. Oppewal H, Klabbers M. 2003. Compromising between information completeness and task simplicity: a comparison of self-explicated, hierarchical information integration, and full-profile conjoint methods. Advances in Consumer Research 30: 298-304.
19. Oppewal H, Louviere JJ, Timmermans HJP. 1994. Modeling hierarchical conjoint processes with integrated choice experiments. Journal of Marketing Research 31: 92-105.
20. Oppewal H, Timmermans H. 1999. Modeling consumer perception of public space in shopping centers. Environment and behaviour 31: 45-65.
21. Oppewal H, Vriens M. 2000. Measuring perceived service quality using integrated conjoint experiments. International Journal of Bank Marketing 18: 154-169.
22. Phillips KA, Maddala T, Johnson FR. 2002. Measuring preferences for health care interventions using conjoint analysis: an application to HIV testing. Health Services Research 37: 1681-1705.
23. Ryan M. 1999. Using conjoint analysis to take account of patient preferences and go beyond health outcomes: an application to in vitro fertilisation. Social Science and Medicine 48: 535-546.
24. Ryan M, Bate A, Eastmond CJ, Ludbrook A. 2001a. Use of discrete choice experiments to elicit preferences. Quality in Health Care 10(Suppl): I55-I60.
25. Ryan M, Scott DA, Reeves C, Bate A, Teijlingen van ER, Russell EM, Napper M, Robb CM. 2001b. Eliciting public preferences for health care: a systematic review of techniques. Health Technology Assessment 5(5).
26. Ryan M., Gerard K. 2003. Using discrete choice experiments to value health care programmes: current practice and future research reflections. Applied Health Economics and Health Policy 2: 55-64.
27. San Miguel F, Ryan M, McIntosh E. 2000. Applying conjoint analysis in economic evaluations: an application to menorrhagia. Applied Economics 32: 823-833.
28. San Miguel F, Ryan M, Scott A. 2002. Are preferences stable? The case of health care. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 48: 1-14.
29. Scott A, Vick S. 1999. Patients, doctors and contracts: an application of principal-agent theory to the doctor-patient relationship. Scottish Journal of Political Economy 46: 111-134.
30. Sitzia J, Wood N. 1998. Response rate in patient satisfaction research: an analysis of 210 published studies. International Journal for Quality in Health Care 10: 311-317.
31. Street DJ, Burgess L. 2007. The Construction of Optimal Stated Choice Experiments: Theory and Methods. Wiley: Hoboken, NJ.
32. Stuber KJ, Grod JP, Smith DL, Powers P. 2005. An online survey of chiropractors' opinions of continuing education. Chiropractic and Osteopathy 13: 22.
33. Swait J, Louviere J. 1993. The role of the scale parameter in the estimation and comparison of multinomial logit models. Journal of Marketing Research 30: 305-314.
34. Telser H, Zweifel P. 2007. Validity of discrete-choice experiments evidence for health risk reduction. Applied Economics 39: 69-78.
35. Ülengin B. 1998. Using hierarchical information integration to examine customer preferences in banking. International Journal of Bank Marketing 16: 202-210.
36. Vyvere van de Y, Oppewal H, Timmermans H. 1998. The validity of hierarchical information integration choice experiments to model residential preference and choice. Geographical Analysis 30: 254-272.
37. Walker AE, Grimshaw J, Johnston M, Pitts N, Steen N, Eccles M. 2003. PRIME - PRocess modelling in ImpleMEntation research: selecting a theoretical basis for interventions to change clinical practice. BMC Health Services Research 3: 22.
38. Will BP, Berthelot JM, Le Petit C, Tomiak EM, Verma S, Evans WK. 2000. Estimates of the lifetime costs of breast cancer treatment in Canada. European Journal of Cancer 36: 724-735.