Exploring the social value of health-care interventions: A stated preference discrete choice experiment

Health Economics

Volumn 18, Issue 8, 2009, Pages 951-976

  Green, Colin ^a,b   Gerard, Karen ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF EXETER   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF PLYMOUTH   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHAMPTON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Discrete choice experiments; Methodology; Priority setting; Public preference

Indexed keywords

ADULT; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE ACCESS; HEALTH CARE MANAGEMENT; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HEALTH ECONOMICS; HUMAN; MALE; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLIC HEALTH; RESOURCE ALLOCATION; REVIEW; UNITED KINGDOM;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ALGORITHMS; CHOICE BEHAVIOR; CONSUMER SATISFACTION; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE RATIONING; HEALTH SURVEYS; HUMANS; INTERVIEWS AS TOPIC; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; SOCIAL VALUES; STATE MEDICINE; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 70349221583     PISSN: 10579230     EISSN: 10991050     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/hec.1414     Document Type: Review

References (75)

1. Baltussen R, Stolk E, Chisholm D, Aikins M. 2006. Towards a multi-criteria approach for priority setting: an application to Ghana. Health Economics 15(7): 689-696.
2. Birch S, Gafni A. 2002. On being NICE in the UK: guidelines for technology appraisal for the NHS in England and Wales. Health Economics 11: 185-191.
3. BMA. 2001. Healthcare Funding Review. British Medical Association: London.
4. Bowling A. 1996. Health care rationing: the public's debate.British Medical Journal 312(7032):670-674.
5. Bowling A, Mariotto A, Evans O. 2002. Are older people willing to give up their place in the queue for cardiac surgery to a younger person? Age and Ageing 31(3): 187-192.
6. Broome J. 1991. Weighing Goods. Blackwell: Oxford.
7. Bryan S, Dolan P. 2004. Discrete choice experiments in health economics. For better or for worse? Health Economics 3: 199-202.
8. Bryan S, Roberts T, Heginbotham C, McCallum A. 2002. QALY-maximisation and public preferences: results from a general population survey. Health Economics 11(8): 679-693.
9. Charny MC, Lewis PA, Farrow SC. 1989. Choosing who shall not be treated in the NHS. Social Science & Medicine 28(12): 1331-1338.
10. Cookson R, Dolan P. 1999. Public views on health care rationing: a group discussion study. Health Policy 49(1-2): 63-74.
11. Culyer AJ. 2001. Equity - some theory and its policy implications. Journal of Medical Ethics 27(4): 275-283.
12. Dakin HA, Devlin NJ, Odeyemi IAO. 2006. "Yes", "no" or "yes, but'? Multinomial modelling of NICE decisionmaking. Health Policy 77: 352-367.
13. Dawes RM, Corrigan B. 1974. Linear models in decision making. Psychological Bulletin 81: 97-106.
14. Department of Health. 1997. The New NHS: Modern, Dependable. Department of Health (UK): London.
15. Department of Health. 2000. The NHS Plan. Department of Health: London.
16. Department of Health. 2001. Involving Patients and the Public in Healthcare: A Discussion Document. Department of Health: London.
17. Devlin N, Parkin D. 2004. Does NICE have a cost-effectiveness threshold and what other factors influence its decisions? A binary choice analysis. Health Economics 13: 437-452.
18. Dicker A, Armstrong D. 1995. Patients' views of priority setting in health care: an interview survey in one practice. British Medical Journal 311(7013): 1137-1139.
19. Dolan P, Shaw R, Tsuchiya A, Williams A. 2005. QALY maximisation and people's preferences: a methodological review of the literature. Health Economics 14(2): 197-208.
20. Edwards RT, Boland A, Wilkinson C, Cohen D, Williams J. 2003. Clinical and lay preferences for the explicit prioritisation of elective waiting lists: survey evidence from Wales. Health Policy 63(3): 229-237.
21. EuroQol Group. 1990. EuroQol - a new facility for the measurement of health related quality of life. Health Policy 16: 199-208.
22. Farrar S, Ryan M, Ross D, Ludbrook A. 2000. Using discrete choice modelling in priority setting: an application to clinical service developments. Social Science & Medicine 50(1): 63-75.
23. Fiebig DG, Louviere JL, Walsman DM. 2005. Contemporary issues in modelling discrete choice experimental data in health economics. Working Paper, School of Economics, University of New South Wales, Australia.
24. Gerard K. 2005. Economic aspects of consumer involvement in health care benefit assessment. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
25. Green C. 2007. Justice, fairness and equity in health care: exploring the social value of health care interventions. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
26. Greene WH. 2003. Econometric Analysis (5th edn). Prentice-Hall: New Jersey.
27. Gyrd-Hansen D. 2004. Investigating the social value of health changes. Journal of Health Economics 23(6): 1101-1116.
28. Gyrd-Hansen D, Slothuus U. 2002. The citizen's preferences for financing public health care: a Danish survey. International Journal of Health Care Finance and Economics 2(1): 25-36.
29. Ham C. 1997. Health Care Reform: Learning from International Experience. Open University Press: Buckingham, UK.
30. Ham C, Robert G. 2003. Reasonable Rationing. International Experience of Priority Setting in Health Care. Open University Press: Maidenhead, UK.
31. Hanemann WM. 1984. Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete responses. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 66: 332-341.
32. Hauck K, Smith PC, Goddard M. 2003. The economics of priority setting for health care. A literature review. Health Nutrition and Population (HNP) Discussion Paper, The World Bank, Washington, USA.
33. Hensher DA, Rose JM, Greene WH. 2005. Applied Choice Analysis: A Primer. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.
34. Hope T. 2001. Rationing and life-saving treatments: should identifiable patients have higher priority? Journal of Medical Ethics 27(3): 179-185.
35. Huber J, Zwerina K. 1996. The importance of utility balance in efficient choice set designs. Journal of Marketing Research 33: 307-317.
36. Lancaster K. 1966. A new approach to consumer theory. Journal of Political Economy 74: 132-157.
37. Lancaster KJ. 1971. Consumer Demand: A New Approach. Columbia University Press: New York.
38. Lanscar E, Louviere J. 2006. Deleting 'irrational' responses from discrete choice experiments: a case of investigating or imposing preferences? Health Economics 15(8): 797-811.
39. Lloyd AJ. 2003. Threats to the estimation of benefit: are preference elicitation methods accurate?. Health Economics 12(5): 392-403.
40. Louviere J, Hensher D, Swait J. 2000. Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Applications. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.
41. Martin D, Abelson J, Singer P. 2002. Participation in health care priority-setting through the eyes of the participants. Journal of Health Services Research and Policy 7(4): 222-229.
42. McFadden D. 1973. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behaviour. In Frontiers in Economics, Zarembka P (ed.). Academic Press: New York.
43. Myllykangas M, Ryynanen OP, Lammintakanen J, Isomaki VP, Kinnunen J, Halonen P. 2003. Clinical management and prioritization criteria. Finnish experiences. Journal of Health Organisation and Management 17(5): 338-348.
44. National Institute for Clinical Excellence. 2003. Guidance on the use of imatinab for chronic myeloid leukaemia. Report No. TA070, National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, London.
45. National Institute for Clinical Excellence. 2004. Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal. National Institute for Clinical Excellence: London.
46. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. 2005. Social Value Judgements. Principles for the Development of NICE Guidance. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence: London. (Available from: www.nice.org.uk.)
47. New B. 1997. Rationing. Talk and Action in Health Care. BMJ Publishing Group: London.
48. Newdick C. 2005. Who Should We Treat? Rights, Rationing, and Resources in the NHS (2nd edn). Oxford University Press: Oxford, New York.
49. Nord E. 1993a. The relevance of health state after treatment in prioritizing between different patients. Journal of Medical Ethics 19(1): 37-42.
50. Nord E. 1993b. The trade-off between severity of illness and treatment effect in cost-value analysis of health care. Health Policy 24(3): 227-238.
51. Nord E, Richardson J, Street A, Kuhse H, Singer P. 1995. Maximizing health benefits vs egalitarianism: an Australian survey of health issues. Social Science & Medicine 41(10): 1429-1437.
52. Oliver A, Mossialos E, Robinson R. 2004. Health technology assessment and its influence on health-care priority setting. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 20(1): 1-10.
53. Pearmain D, Swanson J, Kroes E, Bradley M. 1991. Stated Preference Techniques. A Guide to Practice. Steer, Davis, Gleave and Hague Consulting Group: Richmond, Surrey; The Hague, Netherlands.
54. Ratcliffe J. 2000. Public preferences for the allocation of donor liver grafts for transplantation. Health Economics 9(2): 137-148.
55. Rawlins MD, Culyer AJ. 2004. National Institute for Clinical Excellence and its value judgements. British Medical Journal 329: 224-226.
56. Roberts T, Bryan S, Heginbotham C, McCallum A. 1999. Public involvement in health care priority setting: an economic perspective. Health Expectations 2(4): 235-244.
57. Ryan M, Amaya-Amaya M. 2005. The threats to and hopes for estimating benefits. Health Economics 14(6): 609-620.
58. 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(1): 1-10.
59. Ryan M, Gerard K, Amaya-Amaya M. 2008. Using Discrete Choice Experiments to Value Health and Health Care. Springer: Berlin.
60. Ryan M, Scott DA, Reeves C, Bate A, Russell EM. 2001. Eliciting public preferences for healthcare: a systematic review of techniques. Health Technology Assessment 5(5): 1-186.
61. Sassi F, Archard L, Le GJ. 2001a. Equity and the economic evaluation of healthcare. Health Technology Assessment 5(3): 1-138.
62. Sassi F, Le GJ, Archard L. 2001b. Equity versus efficiency: a dilemma for the NHS. British Medical Journal 323(7316): 762-763.
63. Schwappach DL. 2002a. Resource allocation, social values and the QALY: a review of the debate and empirical evidence. Health Expectations 5(3): 210-222.
64. Schwappach DL. 2002b. The equivalence of numbers: the social value of avoiding health decline: an experimental Web-based study. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making 2(1): 3.
65. Schwappach DL, Strasmann TJ. 2006. "Quick and dirty numbers"? The reliability of a stated-preference technique for the measurement of preferences for resource allocation. Journal of Health Economics 25(3): 432-448.
66. Schwappach DLB. 2003. Does it matter who you are or what you gain? An experimental study of preferences for resource allocation. Health Economics 12(4): 255-267.
67. Southampton City Council, Southampton. 2004. The 2001 Census Results. Southampton City Council, July. (Available from: www.southampton.gov.uk.)
68. STATA Corporation. 2003. Stata Reference Manual, Release 8. STATA Corporation: College Station, TX.
69. Street D, Burgess L. 2003. Quick and Easy Choice Sets: Using Word Processing Packages to Construct Near-optimal Stated Choice Experiments. University of Technology: Sydney.
70. Street D, Burgess L. 2004. Optimal and near optimal pairs for the estimation of effects in the 2-level choice experiment. Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference 118: 185-199.
71. Street D, Burgess L, Viney RLJ. 2008. Designing discrete choice experiments for health care. In Using Discrete Choice Experiments to Value Health and Health Care, Ryan M, Gerard K, Amaya-Amaya M (eds). Springer: Berlin.
72. Stronks K, Strijbis AM, Wendte JF, Gunning-Schepers LJ. 1997. Who should decide? Qualitative analysis of panel data from public, patients, healthcare professionals, and insurers on priorities in health care. British Medical Journal 315(7100): 92-96.
73. Tappenden P, Brazier J, Ratcliffe J, Chilcott J. 2007. A stated preference binary choice experiment to explore NICE decision making. Pharmacoeconomics 25(8): 685-693.
74. Ubel PA. 1999. How stable are people's preferences for giving priority to severely ill patients? Social Science & Medicine 49(7): 895-903.
75. Williams I, Bryan S, McIver S. 2005. The use of cost effectiveness analysis in technology coverage decisions: evidence from the UK. Presentation at the Meeting of Society of Medical Decision Making, San Francisco, CA, USA.