Preferences for new and existing contraceptive products

Health Economics

Volumn 20, Issue SUPPL. 1, 2011, Pages 35-52

  Fiebig, Denzil G ^a   Knox, Stephanie ^b   Viney, Rosalie ^b   Haas, Marion ^b   Street, Deborah J ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES   (Australia)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY SYDNEY   (Australia)

Author keywords

contraceptive choice; discrete choice experiment; generalised multinomial logit; new product demand

Indexed keywords

INJECTABLE CONTRACEPTIVE AGENT; ORAL CONTRACEPTIVE AGENT;

ADULT; ARTICLE; AUSTRALIA; CONDOM; CONTRACEPTION; DECISION MAKING; EMERGENCY CONTRACEPTION; FEMALE; GENERAL PRACTITIONER; HEALTH ECONOMICS; HORMONAL CONTRACEPTION; HUMAN; HYSTERECTOMY; INTRAUTERINE CONTRACEPTIVE DEVICE; MARKETING; PATIENT PREFERENCE; PRESCRIPTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SIMULATION; TASK PERFORMANCE; VAGINA RING; VASECTOMY; WOMEN'S HEALTH;

ACNE VULGARIS; ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AUSTRALIA; BODY WEIGHT; CHOICE BEHAVIOR; CONTRACEPTION; CONTRACEPTIVE AGENTS, FEMALE; CONTRACEPTIVE DEVICES, FEMALE; DRUG ADMINISTRATION ROUTES; DRUG ADMINISTRATION SCHEDULE; FEMALE; HUMANS; MIDDLE AGED; MODELS, ECONOMETRIC; PATIENT PREFERENCE; PRESCRIPTION FEES; SOCIOECONOMIC FACTORS; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 79961092493     PISSN: 10579230     EISSN: 10991050     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/hec.1686     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. ABS. 2006. Australian Historical Population Statistics. Australian Bureau of Statistics: Canberra. cat. no. 3105.0.65.001.
2. Brownstone D, Train K,. 1999. Forecasting new product penetration with flexible substitution patterns. Journal of Econometrics 89: 109-129. (Pubitemid 128416647)
3. Delavande A,. 2008. Pill, Patch or Shot? Subjective expectations and birth control choice. International Economic Review 49: 999-1042.
4. Fiebig DG, Keane MP, Louviere JJ, Wasi N,. 2010. The generalized multinomial logit model: accounting for scale and coefficient heterogeneity. Marketing Science 29: 393-421.
5. Gilliam M, Holmquist S, Berlin A,. 2007. Factors associated with willingness to use the contraceptive vaginal ring. Contraception 76: 30-34. (Pubitemid 46935115)
6. Gray E, McDonald P,. 2007. Contraceptive practice and the reproductive life course. HILDA Survey Research Conference, Melbourne.
7. Hall JP, King MT, Fiebig DG, Hossain I, Louviere JJ,. 2006. What influences participation in genetic carrier testing? Results from a discrete choice experiment. Journal of Health Economics 25: 520-537.
8. Hole AR,. 2008. Modelling heterogeneity in patients' preferences for the attributes of a general practitioner appointment. Journal of Health Economics 27: 1078-1094.
9. Kuhfeld WF,. 2006. Orthogonal Arrays. SAS Institute. Available from:.
10. Louviere JJ, Street DJ, Burgess L, Wasi N, Islam T, Marley AAJ,. 2008. Modelling the choices of individual decision makers by combining efficient choice experiment designs with extra preference information. Journal of Choice Modelling 1: 128-163.
11. Novák A, de la Loge C, Abetz L, van der Meulen EA,. 2002. The combined contraceptive vaginal ring, NuvaRingS: an international study of user acceptability. Contraception 67: 187-194.
12. Revelt D, Train K,. 1998. Mixed logit with repeated choices: household choices of appliance efficiency level. Review of Economics and Statistics 80: 647-657. (Pubitemid 128344306)
13. Seston EM, Elliott RA, Noyce PR, Payne K,. 2007. Women's preferences for the provision of emergency hormonal contraception services. Pharmacy World and Science 29 (3): 183-189. (Pubitemid 46872980)
14. Street DJ, Burgess L,. 2007. The Construction of Optimal Stated Choice Experiments: Theory and Methods. Wiley: New Jersey.
15. Terris-Prestholt F,. 2009. Will microbicide introduction affect condom use? Analysis of a discrete choice experiment among urban South African women. iHEA 7th World Congress, Beijing, China.
16. Train KE,. 2003. Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.
17. Yusuf F, Siedlecky S,. 2007. Patterns of contraceptive use in Australia: analysis of the 2001 National Health Survey. Journal of Biological Science 39: 734-744.