What's good and bad about contraceptive products?: A best-worst attribute experiment comparing the values of women consumers and GPs

PharmacoEconomics

Volumn 30, Issue 12, 2012, Pages 1187-1202

  Knox, Stephanie A ^a   Viney, Rosalie C ^a   Street, Deborah J ^b   Haas, Marion R ^a   Fiebig, Denzil G ^c   Weisberg, Edith ^d   Bateson, Deborah ^d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY SYDNEY   (Australia)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY SYDNEY   (Australia)

^c UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES   (Australia)

^d Sydney Centre for Reproductive Health Research   (Australia)

Author keywords

Combined oral contraceptives; Conjoint analysis; Contraceptives; General practice; Hormonal contraceptives; Injectable contraceptives; Intrauterine contraceptive device; Oral contraceptives; Patient preference; Progestogen only oral contraceptives

Indexed keywords

INJECTABLE CONTRACEPTIVE AGENT; ORAL CONTRACEPTIVE AGENT; POSTCOITUS CONTRACEPTIVE AGENT;

ACNE; ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BARRIER CONTRACEPTION; BODY WEIGHT; CONSUMER ATTITUDE; CONTRACEPTION; DRUG COST; EDUCATIONAL STATUS; EMERGENCY CONTRACEPTION; EMPLOYMENT STATUS; FEMALE; GENERAL PRACTITIONER; HEALTH CARE COST; HORMONAL CONTRACEPTION; HUMAN; INCOME; INTRAUTERINE CONTRACEPTIVE DEVICE; MALE; MENSTRUAL CYCLE; MONTE CARLO METHOD; ORAL CONTRACEPTION; PHYSICIAN ATTITUDE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SEX DIFFERENCE; VAGINA BLEEDING; VAGINA CONTRACEPTION; VAGINA RING;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; ATTITUDE OF HEALTH PERSONNEL; ATTITUDE TO HEALTH; AUSTRALIA; CONTRACEPTIVE AGENTS; DATA COLLECTION; FEMALE; GENERAL PRACTITIONERS; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MODELS, THEORETICAL; PATIENT ACCEPTANCE OF HEALTH CARE; PATIENT PREFERENCE; PHYSICIAN'S PRACTICE PATTERNS; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84869200928     PISSN: 11707690     EISSN: 11792027     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2165/11598040-000000000-00000     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Yusuf F, Siedlecky S. Patterns of contraceptive use in Australia: Analysis of the 2001 national health survey. J Biosoc Sci 2007; 39 (5): 735-44 (Pubitemid 47174053)
2. Gray E, McDonald P. Using a reproductive life course approach to understand contraceptive method use in Australia. J Biosoc Sci 2010; 42 (1): 43-57
3. Nova'k A, de la Loge C, Abetz L, et al. The combined contraceptive vaginal ring, Nuvaring: An international study of user acceptability. Contraception 2002; 67: 187-94
4. Fiebig DG, Knox S, Viney R, et al. Preferences for new and existing contraceptive products. Health Econ 2011; 20: 35-52
5. Flynn TN, Louviere JJ, Peters TJ, et al. Best-worst scaling: what it can do for health care research and how to do it. J Health Econ 2007; 26 (1): 171-89 (Pubitemid 44908719)
6. Louviere JJ, Islam T. A comparison of importance weights and willingness-to-pay measures derived from choice-based conjoint, constant sum scales and best-worst scaling. J Bus Res 2008; 61: 903-11
7. Marley AAJ, Louviere JJ. Some probabilistic models of best, worst, and best-worst choices. J Math Psychol 2005; 49: 464-80 (Pubitemid 43046070)
8. Marley AAJ, Flynn TN, Louviere JJ. Probabilistic models of set-dependent and attribute level best-worst choices. J Math Psychol 2008; 52: 281-96
9. Hall J, Fiebig DG, King MT, et al. What influences participation in genetic carrier testing? Results from a discrete choice experiment. J Health Econ 2006; 25 (3): 520-37
10. Lancsar E, Louviere J, Flynn T. Several methods to investigate relative attribute impact in stated preference experiments. Soc Sci Med 2007; 64 (8): 1738-53 (Pubitemid 46436252)
11. Fiebig DG, Haas M, Hossain I, et al. Decisions about Pap tests: what influences women and providers? Soc Sci Med 2009; 68 (10): 1766-74
12. Coast J, Salisbury C, de Berker D, et al. Preferences for aspects of a dermatology consultation. Br J Dermatol 2006; 155 (2): 387-92 (Pubitemid 44050574)
13. Coast J, Flynn TN, Natarajan L, et al. Valuing the ICECAP capability index for older people. Soc Sci Med 2008; 67 (5): 874-82
14. Finn A, Louviere JJ. Determining the appropriate response to evidence of public concern: The case of food safety. J Public Policy Mark 1992; 11 (2): 12-25
15. Street DJ, Burgess L. The construction of optimal stated choice experiments: Theory and methods. Hoboken (NJ): Wiley, 2007
16. Survey Sampling International [online]. Available from URL: Http://www.surveysampling.com/en/forms/globalpanel-book [Accessed 2009 Feb 15]
17. Britt H, Miller GC, Charles J, et al. General practice activity in Australia 2007-2008. Canberra: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2008
18. Australian Bureau of Statistics. Australian historical population statistics. Canberra (ACT): ABS, 2006
19. Gilliam M, Holmquist S, Berlin A. Factors associated with willingness to use the contraceptive vaginal ring. Contraception 2007; 76: 30-4 (Pubitemid 46935115)
20. Creinin MD, Meyn LA, Borgatta L, et al. Multicenter comparison of the contraceptive ring and patch: A randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 2008; 111 (2 Pt 1): 267-77 (Pubitemid 351653415)
21. de Bekker-Grob EW, Essink-Bot ML, Meerding WJ, et al. Preferences of GPs and patients for preventive osteoporosis drug treatment: A discrete-choice experiment. Pharmacoeconomics 2009; 27 (3): 211-9
22. Ratcliffe J, Couzner L, Flynn T, et al. Valuing Child Health Utility 9D health states with a young adolescent sample: A feasibility study to compare best-worst scaling discretechoice experiment, standard gamble and time trade-off methods. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 2011; 9 (1): 15-27
23. Potoglou D, Burge P, Flynn T, et al. Best-worst scaling vs. discrete choice experiments: An empirical comparison using social care data. Soc Sci Med 2011; 72 (10): 1717-27