Discrete choice experiments for measurement of willingness-to-pay for healthcare services an application-oriented literature review;Discrete-Choice-Experimente zur Messung der Zahlungsbereitschaft für Gesundheitsleistungen ein?anwendungsbezogener Literaturreview

Gesundheitsokonomie und Qualitatsmanagement

Volumn 16, Issue 4, 2011, Pages 232-244

  Rottenkolber, D ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MUNICH   (Germany)

^b INSTITUTE OF EPIDEMIOLOGY   (Germany)

Author keywords

discrete choice experiment; preferences; willingness to pay

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATABASE; CITATION ANALYSIS; CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DISCRETE CHOICE EXPERIMENT; ECONOMIC ASPECT; FORCED CHOICE METHOD; HEALTH CARE SYSTEM; HEALTH SERVICE; HUMAN; INTERNAL CONSISTENCY; MEDICAL LITERATURE; MEDICAL RESEARCH; MEDICAL SERVICE; MEDLINE; METHODOLOGY; PATIENT ATTITUDE; PROSPECTIVE PAYMENT; PROSPECTIVE PRICING; VALIDITY; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

EID: 80051665859     PISSN: 14322625     EISSN: 14394049     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1055/s-0029-1245852     Document Type: Article

References (110)

1. Cookson R. Willingness to pay methods in health care: a sceptical view. Health Econ 2003 12 891-894 (Pubitemid 37407334)
2. Ryan M, Gerard K, Amaya-Amaya M, (Hrsg.). Using Discrete Choice Experiments to Value Health and Health Care. Springer Netherlands Dordrecht 2008
3. Pol M van der, Shiell A, Au F et al. Eliciting individual preferences for health care: a case study of perinatal care. Health Expect 2010 13 4-12
4. McIntosh E. Using discrete choice experiments within a cost-benefit analysis framework: some considerations. Pharmacoeconomics 2006 24 855-868 (Pubitemid 44338297)
5. Ryan M, Bate A, Eastmond C J. et al. Use of discrete choice experiments to elicit preferences. Qual Health Care 2001 10 Suppl 1 i55-60
6. Ratcliffe J. The use of conjoint analysis to elicit willingness-to-pay values. Proceed with caution? Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2000 16 270-275 (Pubitemid 30263220)
7. Slothuus Skjoldborg U, Gyrd-Hansen D. Conjoint analysis. The cost variable: an Achilles heel? Health Econ 2003 12 479-491
8. Lancsar E, Louviere J. Conducting discrete choice experiments to inform healthcare decision making: a users guide. Pharmacoeconomics 2008 26 661-677 (Pubitemid 351989058)
9. Carlsson F, Martinsson P. Design techniques for stated preference methods in health economics. Health Econ 2003 12 281-294 (Pubitemid 36442817)
10. Ryan M, Scott D A., Reeves C et al. Eliciting public preferences for healthcare: a systematic review of techniques. Health Technol Assess 2001 5 1-186
11. Ryan M. A role for conjoint analysis in technology assessment in health care? Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1999 15 443-457 (Pubitemid 29466178)
12. Donaldson C, Shackley P. Willingness to Pay for Health Care. In Scott A Maynard A Elliott R (Hrsg.) Advances in Health Economics. Chichester Wiley & Sons 2003
13. Garrod G, Willis K. Economic Valuation of the Environment, Methods and Case Studies. Edward Elgar Publishing Limited Cheltenham UK 1999
14. Luce R D., Tukey J W. Simultaneous conjoint measurement: A new type of fundamental measurement. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 1964 1 1-27
15. Louviere J J., Woodworth G. Design and Analysis of Simulated Consumer Choice or Allocation Experiments: An Approach Based on Aggregate Data. Journal of Marketing Research (JMR) 1983 20 350-367
16. Lancaster K. Consumer Demand. A New Approach. Columbia University Press New York 1971
17. Gravelle H, Rees R. Microeconomics. Longman New York 1992 2nd ed
18. McFadden D. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behaviour. In Zarembka P (Hrsg.) Frontiers in Econometrics. New York Academic Press 1974 105-142
19. Lloyd A J. Threats to the estimation of benefit: are preference elicitation methods accurate? Health Econ 2003 12 393-402 (Pubitemid 36603550)
20. Ryan M, Netten A, Skatun D et al. Using discrete choice experiments to estimate a preference-based measure of outcome an application to social care for older people. J?Health Econ 2006 25 927-944 (Pubitemid 44251229)
21. Ryan M, Hughes J. Using conjoint analysis to assess womens preferences for miscarriage management. Health Econ 1997 6 261-273 (Pubitemid 27296590)
22. Emery D R., Barron F H. Axiomatic and numerical conjoint measurement: an evaluation of diagnostic efficacy. Psychometrika 1979 44 195-210
23. Ryan M. A comparison of stated preference methods for estimating monetary values. Health Econ 2004 13 291-296 (Pubitemid 38292485)
24. McFadden D. Econometric Models of Probabilistic Choice. In Manski C McFadden D (Hrsg.) Structural Analysis of Discrete Data with Econometric Applications. Cambridge MIT Press 1981
25. Train K E. Recreation Demand Models with Taste Differences Over People. Land Economics 1998 74 230-239 (Pubitemid 28437633)
26. Hausman J A., Wise D A. A Conditional Probit Model for Qualitative Choice: Discrete Decisions Recognizing Interdependence and Heterogeneous Preferences. Econometrica 1978 46 403-426
27. McIntosh E, Ryan M. Using discrete choice experiments to derive welfare estimates for the provision of elective surgery: Implications of discontinuous preferences. Journal of Economic Psychology 2002 23 367
28. Scott A. Identifying and analysing dominant preferences in discrete choice experiments: An application in health care. Journal of Economic Psychology 2002 23 383
29. Train K E., Sonnier G. Mixed logit with bounded distributions of correlated partworths. In Alberini A Scarpa R (Hrsg.) Application of Simulation Methods in Environmental und Resource Economics. Dordrecht Springer 2005 117-134
30. Hall J, Fiebig D G., King M T. et al. What influences participation in genetic carrier testing? Results from a discrete choice experiment. J?Health Econ 2006 25 520-537
31. Eberth B, Watson V, Ryan M et al. Does one size fit all? Investigating heterogeneity in mens preferences for benign prostatic hyperplasia treatment using mixed logit analysis. Med Decis Making 2009 29 707-715
32. Lancsar E, Savage E. Deriving welfare measures from discrete choice experiments: inconsistency between current methods and random utility and welfare theory. Health Econ 2004 13 901-907 (Pubitemid 39264236)
33. Kimman M L., Dellaert B G., Boersma L J. et al. Follow-up after treatment for breast cancer: one strategy fits all? An investigation of patient preferences using a discrete choice experiment. Acta Oncol 2010 49 328-337
34. Ryan M, Gerard K. Using Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: Moving Forward. In Scott A Maynard A Elliott R (Hrsg.) Advances in Health Economics. Chichester Wiley & Sons 2003
35. Pitchforth E, Watson V, Tucker J et al. Models of intrapartum care and womens trade-offs in remote and rural Scotland: a mixed-methods study. BJOG 2008 115 560-569 (Pubitemid 351357565)
36. Salkeld G, Ryan M, Short L. The veil of experience: do consumers prefer what they know best? Health Econ 2000 9 267-270 (Pubitemid 30248644)
37. Thaler R H. Toward a positive theory of consumer choice. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 1980 1 39-60
38. Grutters J P., Kessels A G., Dirksen C D. et al. Willingness to Accept versus Willingness to Pay in a Discrete Choice Experiment. Value Health 2008 11 1110-1119
39. Ryan M, Major K, Skatun D. Using discrete choice experiments to go beyond clinical outcomes when evaluating clinical practice. J?Eval Clin Pract 2005 11 328-338 (Pubitemid 41059314)
40. Telser H. Nutzenmessung im Gesundheitswesen. Die Methode der Discrete-Choice-Experimente. Verlag Dr. Kova Hamburg 2002
41. Johnson F R., Manjunath R, Mansfield C A. et al. High-risk individuals willingness to pay for diabetes risk-reduction programs. Diabetes Care 2006 29 1351-1356 (Pubitemid 44125934)
42. Taylor S J., Armour C L. Acceptability of willingness to pay techniques to consumers. Health Expect 2002 5 341-356 (Pubitemid 35447301)
43. Roux L, Ubach C, Donaldson C et al. Valuing the benefits of weight loss programs: an application of the discrete choice experiment. Obes Res 2004 12 1342-1351 (Pubitemid 41137479)
44. Aristides M, Weston A R., 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 7 442-454 (Pubitemid 39038453)
45. Louviere J J., Hensher D A., Swait J D. Stated Choice Methods. Analysis and Application. Cambridge University Press Cambridge 2000
46. Mangham L J., Hanson K, McPake B. How to do (or not to do) Designing a discrete choice experiment for application in a low-income country. Health Policy Plan 2009 24 151-158
47. Farrar S, Ryan M. Response-ordering effects: a methodological issue in conjoint analysis. Health Econ 1999 8 75-79 (Pubitemid 29057357)
48. Kjaer T, Bech M, Gyrd-Hansen D et al. Ordering effect and price sensitivity in discrete choice experiments: need we worry? Health Econ 2006 15 1217-1228 (Pubitemid 44696949)
49. Tversky A, Kahneman D. Judgement under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science 1974 185 1124-1130
50. Morkbak M R., Christensen T, Gyrd-Hansen D. Choke Price Bias in Choice Experiments. Environ Resource Econ 2010 45 537-551
51. Ratcliffe J, Longworth L. Investigating the structural reliability of a discrete choice experiment within health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2002 18 139-144 (Pubitemid 34408536)
52. Cheraghi-Sohi S, Bower P, Mead N et al. Making sense of patient priorities: applying discrete choice methods in primary care using think aloud technique. Fam Pract 2007 24 276-282 (Pubitemid 47249461)
53. Ryan M, Watson V, Entwistle V. Rationalising the irrational: a think aloud study of discrete choice experiment responses. Health Econ 2009 18 321-336
54. Bryan S, Buxton M, Sheldon R et al. Magnetic resonance imaging for the investigation of knee injuries: an investigation of preferences. Health Econ 1998 7 595-603 (Pubitemid 28521898)
55. Ryan M, Skatun D. Modelling non-demanders in choice experiments. Health Econ 2004 13 397-402 (Pubitemid 38477081)
56. Bateman I J., Carson R T., Day B et al. Economic evaluation with stated preference techniques, a manual. Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd Cheltenham 2002
57. Miguel F S., Ryan M, Amaya-Amaya M. Irrational stated preferences: a quantitative and qualitative investigation. Health Econ 2005 14 307-322 (Pubitemid 40360765)
58. Haaijer R, Kamakura W, Wedel M. The No-Choice Alternative in Conjoint Choice Experiments. International Journal of Market Research 2001 43 93-106
59. Herbild L, Bech M, Gyrd-Hansen D. Estimating the Danish populations preferences for pharmacogenetic testing using a discrete choice experiment. The case of treating depression. Value Health 2009 12 560-567
60. Kenny P, Hall J, Viney R et al. Do participants understand a stated preference health survey? A qualitative approach to assessing validity. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2003 19 664-681 (Pubitemid 38405639)
61. Fraenkel L. Conjoint Analysis at the Individual Patient Level: Issues to Consider as We Move from a Research to a Clinical Tool. Patient 2008 1 251-253
62. Lichtenstein S, Slovic P. The construction of preference. Cambridge University Press Cambridge 2006
63. Tversky A, Kahneman D. The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science 1981 211 453-458 (Pubitemid 11145313)
64. Howard K, Salkeld G. Does Attribute Framing in Discrete Choice Experiments Influence Willingness to Pay? Results from a Discrete Choice Experiment in Screening for Colorectal Cancer. Value Health 2009 12 354-363
65. Brocke M. Präferenzmessung durch die Discrete Choice-Analyse. Effekte der Aufgabenkomplexität. Gabler Wiesbaden 2006
66. Zwerina K. Discrete Choice Experiments in Marketing. Use of Priors in Efficient Choice Designs and Their Application to Individual Preference Measurement. Physica-Verlag Heidelberg 1997
67. Sandor Z, Wedel M. Heterogeneous conjoint choice designs. Journal of Marketing Research 2005 42 210-218 (Pubitemid 40653435)
68. DesignDecisionWiki. Software for discrete choice model estimation. http://ddl.me.cmu.edu/ddwiki/index.php/Software-for-discrete-choice-model- estimation
69. Royal Economic Society. Econometric Software Links. http://www.feweb.vu. nl/econometricLinks/software.html
70. Hauber A B. Issues that May Affect the Validity and Reliability of Willingness-to-Pay Estimates in Stated-Preference Studies. The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research 2008 1 249-250
71. Telser H, Becker K, Zweifel P. Validity and Reliability of Willingness-to-Pay Estimates: Evidence from Two Overlapping Discrete-Choice Experiments. The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research 2008 1 283-298
72. Schwappach D L., Strasmann T J. Quick and dirty numbers? The reliability of a stated-preference technique for the measurement of preferences for resource allocation. J?Health Econ 2006 25 432-448
73. Seston E M., Elliott R A., Noyce P R. et al. Womens preferences for the provision of emergency hormonal contraception services. Pharm World Sci 2007 29 183-189 (Pubitemid 46872980)
74. Lancsar E, Louviere J. Deleting irrational responses from discrete choice experiments: a case of investigating or imposing preferences? Health Econ 2006 15 797-811 (Pubitemid 44184131)
75. Bryan S, Dolan P. Discrete choice experiments in health economics. For better or for worse? Eur J Health Econ 2004 5 199-202 (Pubitemid 39382517)
76. Lloyd A, Doyle S, Dewilde S et al. Preferences and utilities for the symptoms of moderate to severe allergic asthma. Eur J Health Econ 2008 9 275-284
77. Bryan S, Gold L, Sheldon R et al. Preference measurement using conjoint methods: an empirical investigation of reliability. Health Econ 2000 9 385-395 (Pubitemid 30612142)
78. Skjoldborg U S., Lauridsen J, Junker P. Reliability of the discrete choice experiment at the input and output level in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Value Health 2009 12 153-158
79. Payne J W., Bettmann J R., Luce M F. et al,. Behavioral Decision Research. An Overview. In Birnbaum M E. (Hrsg.) Measurement, Judgment and Decision Making. San Diego Academic Press 1998 303-359
80. Gigerenzer G, Todd P, ABC Research Group. Simple Heuristics that Make us Smart. Oxford University Press New York 1999
81. Til J A., Stiggelbout A M., Ijzerman M J. The effect of information on preferences stated in a choice-based conjoint analysis. Patient Educ Couns 2009 74 264-271
82. Zeliadt S B., Ramsey S D., Penson D F. et al. Why do men choose one treatment over another? A review of patient decision making for localized prostate cancer. Cancer 2006 106 1865-1874 (Pubitemid 43673200)
83. Bech M van, Kjaer T, Lauridsen J. Does the number of choice sets matter? Results from a web survey applying a discrete choice experiment. Health Econ 2010 Feb 8. [Epub ahead of print]
84. Witt J, Scott A, Osborne R H. Designing choice experiments with many attributes. An application to setting priorities for orthopaedic waiting lists. Health Econ 2009 18 681-696
85. Sculpher M, Bryan S, Fry P et al. Patients preferences for the management of non-metastatic prostate cancer: discrete choice experiment. BMJ 2004 328 382
86. Ryan M, Farrar S. Using conjoint analysis to elicit preferences for health care. BMJ 2000 320 1530-1533 (Pubitemid 30330316)
87. Hensel-Börner S. Validität computergestützter hybrider Conjoint-Analysen. Gabler Wiesbaden 2000
88. Gerard K, Shanahan M, Louviere J. Using stated preference discrete choice modelling to inform health care decision-making: A pilot study of breast screening participation. Applied Economics 2003 35 1073
89. Ryan M, Wordsworth S. Sensitivity of Willingnes to Pay Estimates to the Level of Attributes in Discrete Choice Experiments. Scottish Journal of Political Economy 2000 47 504
90. Mark T L., Swait J. Using stated preference and revealed preference modeling to evaluate prescribing decisions. Health Econ 2004 13 563-573 (Pubitemid 38787148)
91. Gunther O H., Kurstein B, Riedel-Heller S G. et al. The role of monetary and nonmonetary incentives on the choice of practice establishment: a stated preference study of young physicians in Germany. Health Serv Res 2010 45 212-229
92. Ryan M, Watson V. Comparing welfare estimates from payment card contingent valuation and discrete choice experiments. Health Econ 2009 18 389-401
93. Coast J, Salisbury C, Berker D de et al. Preferences for aspects of a dermatology consultation. Br J Dermatol 2006 155 387-392 (Pubitemid 44050574)
94. Coast J, Flynn T, Sutton E et al. Investigating Choice Experiments for Preferences of Older People (ICEPOP): evaluative spaces in health economics. J?Health Serv Res Policy 2008 13 Suppl 3 31-37
95. Elrod T, Louviere J J., Davey K S. An Empirical Comparison of Ratings-Based and Choice-Based Conjoint Models. Journal of Marketing Research (JMR) 1992 29 368-377
96. Flynn T N., Louviere J J., Peters T J. et al. Best-worst scaling: What it can do for health care research and how to do it. J?Health Econ 2007 26 171-189 (Pubitemid 44908719)
97. Coast J, Horrocks S. Developing attributes and levels for discrete choice experiments using qualitative methods. J?Health Serv Res Policy 2007 12 25-30 (Pubitemid 46174202)
98. Grewal I, Lewis J, Flynn T et al. Developing attributes for a generic quality of life measure for older people: preferences or capabilities? Soc Sci Med 2006 62 1891-1901
99. Swancutt D R., Greenfield S M., Wilson S. Womens colposcopy experience and preferences: a mixed methods study. BMC Womens Health 2008 8 2
100. Cunningham C E., Deal K, Rimas H et al. Modeling the information preferences of parents of children with mental health problems: a discrete choice conjoint experiment. J?Abnorm Child Psychol 2008 36 1123-1138
101. Kievit W, Hulst L van, Riel P van et al. Factors that influence rheumatologists decisions to escalate care in rheumatoid arthritis: results from a choice-based conjoint analysis. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 2010 62 842-847
102. Haughney J, Partridge M R., Vogelmeier C et al. Exacerbations of COPD: quantifying the patients perspective using discrete choice modelling. Eur Respir J 2005 26 623-629 (Pubitemid 41448659)
103. Himme A. Conjoint-Analysen. In Albers S Klapper D Konradt U (Hrsg.) Methodik der empirischen Forschung. 3rd ed Wiesbaden Gabler 2009 283-299
104. Baumgartner B, Steiner W J. Hierarchisch bayesianische Methoden bei der Conjointanalyse. In Baier D Brusch M (Hrsg.) Conjointanalyse. Berlin Heidelberg Springer 2009 147-159
105. Regier D A., Ryan M, Phimister E et al. Bayesian and classical estimation of mixed logit: An application to genetic testing. J?Health Econ 2009 28 598-610
106. Regier D A., Friedman J M., Makela N et al. Valuing the benefit of diagnostic testing for genetic causes of idiopathic developmental disability: willingness to pay from families of affected children. Clin Genet 2009 75 514-521
107. Hole A R. Modelling heterogeneity in patients preferences for the attributes of a general practitioner appointment. J?Health Econ 2008 27 1078-1094
108. Gerard K, Currie G. Using discrete choice experiments in health economics. In Jones A (Hrsg.) The Elgar Companion to Health Economics. Bodmin, Cornwall MPG Books 2006 405-414
109. Nayaradou M, Berchi C, Dejardin O et al. Eliciting population preferences for mass colorectal cancer screening organization. Med Decis Making 2010 30 224-233
110. Chuck A, Adamowicz W, Jacobs P et al. The Willingness to Pay for Reducing Pain and Pain-Related Disability. Value Health 2009 12 498-506