Dear policy maker: Have you made up your mind? A discrete choice experiment among policy makers and other health professionals

International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care

Volumn 26, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 198-204

  Koopmanschap, Marc A ^a   Stolk, Elly A ^a   Koolman, Xander ^b  

^a ERASMUS UNIVERSITY ROTTERDAM   (Netherlands)

^b DELFT UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Cost effectiveness; DCE; Decision making; Disease severity; Health policy

Indexed keywords

DECISION MAKERS; DISCRETE CHOICE; DISEASE SEVERITY; HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALS; HEALTH POLICY; HEALTH PROFESSIONALS; HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENTS; MULTINOMIAL LOGISTIC REGRESSION MODELS; POLICY MAKERS; PRIORITY SETTING; PROGRAM TARGETING; QUALITY OF LIFE;

BUDGET CONTROL; COST EFFECTIVENESS; COSTS; DECISION THEORY; EXPERIMENTS; HEALTH; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; TECHNOLOGICAL FORECASTING;

DECISION MAKING;

ARTICLE; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DECISION MAKING; DISEASE SEVERITY; HEALTH CARE PERSONNEL; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HEALTH STATUS; MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY; NETHERLANDS; PATIENT CARE; PRODUCTIVITY; QUALITY ADJUSTED LIFE YEAR; QUALITY OF LIFE; REIMBURSEMENT;

ADMINISTRATIVE PERSONNEL; ADULT; CHOICE BEHAVIOR; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; FOCUS GROUPS; HEALTH PERSONNEL; HEALTH POLICY; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NETHERLANDS; POLICY MAKING; QUESTIONNAIRES; SEVERITY OF ILLNESS INDEX; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 77953592131     PISSN: 02664623     EISSN: 14716348     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0266462310000048     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Al MJ, Feenstra T, Brouwer WBF. Decision makers' views on health care objectives and budget constraints: Results from a pilot study. Health Policy. 2004;70:33-48.
2. Al MJ, Feenstra TL, van Hout BA. Optimal allocation of resources over health care programmes: Dealing with decreasingmarginal utility and uncertainty. Health Econ. 2005;14:655-667.
3. Baltussen R, Ten Asbroek AH, Koolman X, et al. Priority setting using multiple criteria: Should a lung health programme be implemented in Nepal? Health Policy Plan. 2007;22:178-185.
4. Council for Public Health and Health Care. Sensible and sustainable care. (English summary of report on www.rvz.net). Zoetermeer: Council for Public Health and Health Care; 2006.
5. Dakin HA, Devlin NJ, Odeyemi IA. 2006. "Yes", "no" or "yes, but" multinomial modelling of NICE decision-making. Health Policy. 2006;77:352-367.
6. Devlin N, Parkin D. Does NICE have a cost-effectiveness threshold and what other factors influence its decisions? A binary choice analysis. Health Econ. 2004;13:437-452.
7. Green C, Gerard K. Exploring the social value of health care interventions: A stated preference discrete choice experiment. Health Econ. 2009;18:951-976.
8. Gyrd-Hansen D. Investigating the social value of healthy changes. J Health Econ. 2004;23:1101-1116.
9. Kocur G, Adler T, HymanW, et al. Guide to forecasting travel demand with direct utility assessment. Washington DC: Urban Mass TransportationAdministration, United States Department of Transportation, 1982. Report UMTA-NH-11-001082-1091
10. Lancsar E, Louviere J. Conducting discrete choice experiments to inform healthcare decision making: A user's guide. Pharmacoeconomics. 2008;26:661-677.
11. Niezen MGH, De Bont A, Busschbach JJV, et al. Finding legitimacy for the role of budget impact in drug reimbursement decisions. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009;25:49-55.
12. Pronk MH, Bonsel GJ. Outpatient drug policy by clinical assessment rather than financial constraints? The gate-keeping function of the out patient drug reimbursement system in the Netherlands. Eur J Health Econ. 2004;5:274-277.
13. Rabinowicz W. Prioritarianism and uncertainty: On the interpersonal addition theorem and the priority view. http://mora.rente.nhh.no/projects/ EqualityExchange/ressurser/ articles/rabinowicz2.pdf (accessed 2001).
14. Ratcliffe J, Bekker HL, Dolan P, et al. Examining the attitudes and p of health care decision-makers in relation to access, equity and cost-effectiveness: A discrete choice experiment. Health Policy. 2009;90:45-57.
15. Schwappach DLB, Strasmann TJ. Quick and dirty numbers? The reliability of a stated-preference technique for the measurement of p for resource allocation. J Health Econ. 2006;25:432-448.
16. Stolk EA, van Donselaar G, Brouwer WB, et al. Reconciliation of economic concerns and health policy: Illustration of an equity adjustment procedure using proportional shortfall. Pharmacoeconomics. 2004;22:1097-1107.
17. UTS: Science. Software for the construction of optimal stated choice experiments: Theory and methods. http://maths. science.uts.edu.au/maths/wiki/ SPExptSoftware.