Prioritization preferences among general practitioners in Hungary

East European Politics and Societies

Volumn 26, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 20-32

  Gulácsi, László ^a   Hajdú, Ottó ^a  

^a Institute of Entrepreneurship and Innovation   (Hungary)

Author keywords

Discrete choice modelling; General practice; Hungary; Priorities in health

Indexed keywords

EID: 84855987858     PISSN: 08883254     EISSN: 15338371     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0888325410390207     Document Type: Article

References (59)

1. M. F. Drummond, M. J. Sculpher, G. W. Torrance, et al., Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes, 3rd ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005).
2. D. L. B. Schwappach, Resource Allocation, Social Values and the QALY: A Review of the Debate and Empirical Evidences, Health xpectations 5 (2002): 210-22.
3. E. Nord, Cost-Value Analysis in Health Care. Making Sense out of QALYs (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1999).
4. O. P. Ryynänen, M. Myllykangas, J. Kinnunen, and J. Takala, Attitudes to Health Care Prioritisation Methods and Criteria among Nurses, Doctors, Politicians and the General Public, Social Science & Medicine 49 (1999): 1529-39.
5. N. Devlin and D. Parkin, Does NICE Have a Cost-Effectiveness Threshold and What Other Factors Influence Its Decisions? A Binary Choice Model, Health Economics 13 (2004): 437-52.
6. P. Dolan, R. Shaw, A. Tsuchiya, and A. Williams, QALY Maximisation and People's Preferences: A Methodological Review of the Literature, Health Economics 14 (2005): 197-208.
7. E. Rodríguez and J. L. Pinto, The Social Value of Health Programmes: Is Age a Relevant Factor? Health Economics 9:7(2000): 611-21.
8. C. J. L. Murray and A. D. Lopez, eds., Global Comparative Assessments in the Health Sector: Disease Burden, Expenditures and Intervention Packages (Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization, 1994).
9. M. Johannesson and P. O. Johansson, The Economics of Ageing: On the Attitude of Swedish People to the Distribution of Health Care Resources between the Young and the Old, Health Policy 37:3(1996): 153-61.
10. NICE, Social Value Judgements-Guidance for the Institute and Its Advisory Committees (2005), www.nice.org.uk.
11. Schwappach, Resource Allocation, Social Values and the QALY.
12. A. Tsuchiya, Age-Related Preferences and Age Weighting Health Benefits, Social Science & Medicine 48:2(1999): 267-76.
13. Dolan et al., QALY Maximisation and People's Preferences.
14. O. P. Ryynänen, M. Myllykangas, J. Kinnunen, P. Halonen, and J. Takala, Prioritization Attitudes among Doctors and Nurses Examined by a Scenario Method International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 16:1(2000): 92-99.
15. D. McFadden, Conditional Logit Analysis of Qualitative Choice Behaviour, in P. Zarembka, ed., Frontiers in Econometrics (New York, NY: Academic Press, 1973), 105-42.
16. K. J. Lancaster, A New Approach to Consumer Theory Journal of Political Economy 74:2(1966): 132-57.
17. A. Scott, M. Stuart Watson, and S. Ross, Eliciting Preferences of the Community for Out of Hours Care Provided by General Practitioners: A Stated Preference Discrete Choice Experiment, Social Science & Medicine 56 (2003): 803-14.
18. M. Ryan, A. Netten, D. Skatun, and P. Smith, Using Discrete Choice Experiments to Estimate a Preference-Based Measure of Outcome-An Application to Social Care for Older People, Journal of Health Economics 25 (2006): 927-44.
19. A. Robinson, J. Covey, A. Spencer, and G. Loomes, Are Some Deaths Worse than Others? Results from a Discrete Choice Experiment (Working Paper no. 59, ISSN 1473-0278, Queen Mary University of London, Department of Economics, 2007).
20. M. Ryan, A Role for Conjoint Analysis in Technology Assessment in Health Care? International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 15:3(1999): 443-57.
21. K. Train, Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2003).
22. Nord, Cost-Value Analysis in Health Care.
23. Dolan et al., QALY Maximisation and People's Preferences; Schwappach, Resource Allocation, Social Values and the QALY.
24. Tsuchiya, Age-Related Preferences and Age Weighting Health Benefits.
25. Dolan et al., QALY Maximisation and People's Preferences.
26. Johannesson and P. O. Johansson, The Economics of Ageing.
27. Nord, Cost-Value Analysis in Health Care.
28. Rodríguez J. L. Pinto, The Social Value of Health Programmes.
29. Tsuchiya, Age-Related Preferences and Age Weighting Health Benefits.
30. Devlin and Parkin, Does NICE Have a Cost-Effectiveness Threshold and What Other Factors Influence Its Decisions?
31. Ryynänen et al., Attitudes to Health Care Prioritisation Methods and Criteria.
32. P. A. Ubel, How Stable Are People's Preferences for Giving Priority to Severely Ill Patients? Social Science & Medicine 49:7(1999): 895-903.
33. P. Dolan, The Measurement of Individual Utility and Social Welfare, Journal of Health Economics 17 (1998): 39-52.
34. E. Nord, The Relevance of Health State after Treatment in Prioritising between Different Patients, Journal of Medical Ethics 19 (1993): 37-42.
35. J. M. Abellan-Perpinan and J. L. Pinto-Prades, Health State after Treatment: A Reason for Discrimination? Health Economics 8:8(1999): 701-7.
36. A. Bowling, Health Care Rationing: The Public's Debate British Medical Journal 312 (1996): 670-74.
37. P. Dolan and R. Cookson, A Qualitative Study of the Extent to Which Health Gain Matters When Choosing between Groups of Patients Health Policy 51 (2000): 19-30.
38. J. A. Olsen, A Note on Eliciting Distributive Preferences for Health Journal of Health Economics 19:4(2000): 541-50.
39. E. Nord, J. Richardson, A. Street, H. Kuhse, and P. Singer, Maximising Health Benefits vs. Egalitarianism: An Australian Survey of Health Issues Social Science & Medicine 41:10(1995): 1429-37.
40. Sawtooth Software, Choice-Based Conjoint (CBC) Technical Paper, Technical Paper Series (Sequim, WA: Sawtooth Software, Inc., 2001).
41. Train, Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation.
42. D. A. Hensher, J. M. Rose, and W. H. Greene, Applied Choice Analysis. A Primer (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2005).
43. A. Scott, Identifying and Analysing Dominant Preferences in Discrete Choice Experiments: An Application in Health Care Journal of Economic Psychology 23 (2002): 383-98.
44. A standard logit model is estimated first to derive the initial values for the random parameter logit (RPL). The multinomial logit (MNL) model, however, does not include the heterogeneity in means estimates and the standard deviations of parameter distributions.
45. A. Scott, Eliciting GPs' Preferences for Pecuniary and Non-pecuniary Job Characteristics Journal of Health Economics 20 (2001): 329-47.
46. Ryynänen et al., Prioritization Attitudes among Doctors and Nurses Examined by a Scenario Method.
47. Nord, Cost-Value Analysis in Health Care.
48. M. Johannesson and P. O. Johansson, Is the Valuation of a QALY Gained Independent of Age? Journal of Health Economics 16 (1997): 589-99.
49. J. J. V. Busschbach, D. J. Hessing, and F. T. Charro, The Utility of Health at Different Stages of Life: A Quantitative Approach Social Science & Medicine 37:2(1993): 153-58. 27.
50. Ryynänen et al., Prioritization Attitudes among Doctors and Nurses Examined by a Scenario Method.
51. Bowling, Health Care Rationing.
52. Abellan-Perpinan and Pinto-Prades, Health State after Treatment.
53. R. Cookson and P. Dolan, Public Views on Health Care Rationing: A Group Discussion Study, Health Policy 49 (1999): 63-74.
54. Nord, The Relevance of Health State after Treatment in Prioritising between Different Patients.
55. Abellan-Perpinan and Pinto-Prades, Health State after Treatment.
56. P. A. Ubel, J. Richardson, and J. L. Pinto-Prades, Life-Saving Treatments and Disabilities-Are All QALYs Created Equal? International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 15:4(1999): 738-48.
57. A. Sen, Maximization and the Act of Choice Econometrica 65 (1997): 745-79.
58. Ryynänen et al. Attitudes to Health Care Prioritisation Methods and Criteria.
59. Nord et al., Maximising Health Benefits vs. Egalitarianism.