Does the inclusion of a cost attribute result in different preferences for the surgical treatment of primary basal cell carcinoma?: A comparison of two discrete-choice experiments

PharmacoEconomics

Volumn 28, Issue 6, 2010, Pages 507-520

  Essers, Brigitte A B ^a   Van Helvoort Postulart, Debby ^a   Prins, Martin H ^a   Neumann, Martino ^b   Dirksen, Carmen D ^a  

^a MAASTRICHT UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^b ERASMUS MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Basal cell cancer; Conjoint analysis; Patient preference; Surgery; Treatment

Indexed keywords

ANALYTIC METHOD; ARTICLE; BASAL CELL CARCINOMA; CANCER RECURRENCE; CANCER SURGERY; CHEMOSURGERY; CONTROLLED STUDY; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; COST OF ILLNESS; DISCRETE CHOICE EXPERIMENT; EXCISION; INTERVIEW; OPERATION DURATION; PRIMARY TUMOR; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROBABILITY; PUBLIC HEALTH; REOPERATION; TELEPHONE; TRAVEL; TREATMENT OUTCOME; VALIDITY;

ADULT; CARCINOMA, BASAL CELL; CHOICE BEHAVIOR; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE COSTS; HUMANS; MALE; PATIENT PREFERENCE; SKIN NEOPLASMS;

EID: 77952563035     PISSN: 11707690     EISSN: 11792027     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2165/11532240-000000000-00000     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Lancsar E, Louviere J. Conducting discrete choice experiments to inform healthcare decision making. Pharmacoeconomics 2008;26(8):(661)-77
2. Aristides M, Weston AR, Fitzgerald P, et al. Patient preference and willingness to pay for Humalog Mix25 relative to Humulin 30/70: A multicountry application of a discrete-choice experiment. Value Health 2004;7(4):(442)-54
3. Phillips KA, Maddala T, Reed Johnson F. Measuring preferences for health care interventions using conjoint analysis: An application to HIV testing. Health Serv Res 2002 37:1681-705
4. Hanson K, McPake B, Nakamba P, et al. Preferences for hospital quality in Zambia: Results from a discrete choice experiment. Health Econ 2005 14:687-701.
5. Ossa DF, Briggs A, McIntosh E, et al. Recombinant erythropoietin for chemotherapy-related anaemia. Pharmacoeconomics 2007; 25 (3): 223-237
6. Porteous T, Ryan M, Bond CM, et al. Preferences for selfcare or professional advice for minor illness: a discretechoice experiment. Br J Gen Pract 2007; 57: 911-917
7. Chuck A, Adamowicz W, Jacobs P, et al. The willingness to pay for reducing pain and pain related disability. Value Health 2008; 12 (4): 498-506
8. Slothuus SkjoldborgU, Gyrd-HansenD. Conjoint analysis: the cost-variable. An Achille'sheel? Health Econ 2003; 212: 479-491
9. Verlegh PWJ, Schifferstein HNJ, Wittink DR. Range and number-of-levels in derived and stated measures of attribute importance. Market Lett 2002; 13: 41-52
10. Bryan S, Buxton M, Sheldon R, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging for the investigation of knee injuries: an investigation of preferences. Health Econ 1998; 7 (7): 595-603
11. De Vries E, van de Poll-Franse LV, Louwman WJ, et al. Predictions of skin cancer incidence in the Netherlands up to 2015. Br J Dermatol 2005; 152 (3): 481-488
12. Essers BA,Dirksen CD,Nieman FH, et al. Cost-effectiveness of Mohs micrographic surgery vs surgical excision for basal cell carcinoma of the face. Arch Dermatol 2006; 142 (2): 187-194
13. Mosterd K, Krekels GA, Nieman FH, et al. Surgical excision versus Mohs micrographic surgery for primary and recurrent basal cell carcinoma of the face: a prospective randomised trial with 5-years' follow-up. Lancet Oncol 2008; 12: 1149-1156
14. Smeets NWJ, Krekels GAM, Ostertag JU, et al. Surgical excision versus Mohs micrographic surgery for basal cell carcinoma of the face: a prospective randomised trial. Lancet 2004; 364: 1766-1772
15. Thissen MR, Neumann HA, Schouten LJ. A systematic review of treatment modalities or primary basal cell carcinoma. Arch Dermatol 1999; 135: 1177-1183
16. Louviere JJ, Hensher DA, Swait JD. Stated choice methods: analysis and application. Cambridge: University Press, 2000
17. Huber J, Zwerina K. The importance of utility balance in efficient choice designs. J Mark Res 1996; 8: 307-317
18. Vick S, Scott A. Agency in health care: examining patients preferences for attributes of the doctor-patient relationship. J Health Econ 1998; 17: 587-605
19. Scott A. Eliciting GPs' preferences for pecuniary and non-pecuniary job characteristics. J Health Econ 2001; 20: 329-347
20. Ryan M, Wordsworth S. Sensitivity of willingness to pay estimates to the level of attributes in discrete choice experiments. Scott J Polit Econ 2000; 47: 504-524
21. Greene WH. Limdep version 8.0. users manual. New York: Econometric Software Inc., 1995
22. Malhotra NK, Birks DF. Marketing research: an applied approach [updated 2nd european edition]. Harlow: Prentice Hall, 2006
23. Richardson G, Bojke C, Kennedy A, et al. What outcomes are important to patients with long term conditions? A discrete choice experiment. Value Health 2009; 12: 331-339
24. McIntosh E. Using discrete choice experiments within a cost-benefit analysis framework. Pharmacoeconomics 2006; 24 (9): 855-868
25. Kjaer T, Bech M, Gyrd-Hansen D, et al. Ordering effects and price sensitivity in discrete-choice experiments: need we worry? Health Econ 2006; 15: 1217-1228
26. Islam T, Louviere JJ, Burke PF. Modeling the effects of including/ excluding attributes in choice experiments on systematic and random components. Int J Res Market 2007; 24 (4): 289-300