Australian public preferences for the funding of new health technologies: A comparison of discrete choice and profile case best-worst scaling methods

Medical Decision Making

Volumn 34, Issue 5, 2014, Pages 638-654

  Whitty, Jennifer A ^a   Ratcliffe, Julie ^b   Chen, Gang ^b   Scuffham, Paul A ^a  

^a GRIFFITH UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^b FLINDERS UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

Author keywords

Australia; best worst scaling; discrete choice experiment; health technology assessment; preferences

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGE; AGED; AUSTRALIA; DECISION MAKING; DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM; ECONOMICS; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE ORGANIZATION; HEALTH STATUS; HUMAN; MALE; MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; PUBLIC OPINION; SEX FACTOR; SOCIOECONOMICS; STATISTICAL MODEL; YOUNG ADULT;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGE FACTORS; AGED; AUSTRALIA; BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY; CHOICE BEHAVIOR; DECISION MAKING; DECISION SUPPORT TECHNIQUES; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE RATIONING; HEALTH STATUS; HUMANS; LOGISTIC MODELS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PUBLIC OPINION; SEX FACTORS; SOCIOECONOMIC FACTORS; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84902460934     PISSN: 0272989X     EISSN: 1552681X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X14526640     Document Type: Article

References (81)

1. Melfi CA, Drake BG, Tierney WM. The role of public opinion in drug resource allocation decisions. Pharmacoeconomics. 1996 ; 9 (2). 106-12
2. Traulsen JM, Almarsdottir AB. Pharmaceutical policy and the lay public. Pharm World Sci. 2005 ; 27 (4). 273-7
3. Robinson A, Parkin D. Recognising diversity in public preferences: the use of preference sub-groups in cost-effectiveness analysis: a response to Sculpher and Gafni. Health Econ. 2002 ; 11 (7). 649-51
4. Rawlins MD, Culyer AJ. National Institute for Clinical Excellence and its value judgments. Br Med J. 2004 ; 329 (7459). 224-7
5. Rawlins MD. Pharmacopolitics and deliberative democracy. Clin Med. 2005 ; 5 (5). 471-75
6. Daniels N, Sabin J New York: Oxford University Press ; 2002
7. Mitton CR, McMahon M, Morgan S, Gibson J. Centralized drug review processes: are they fair?. Soc Sci Med. 2006 ; 63 (1). 200-11
8. Abelson J, Giacomini M, Lehoux P, Gauvin FP. Bringing "the public" into health technology assessment and coverage policy decisions: from principles to practice. Health Policy. 2007 ; 82 (1). 37-50
9. Calnan M. Citizens' views on health care. J Manag Med. 1995 ; 9 (4). 17-23
10. Hicks N, Harford J Melbourne: National Resource Centre for Consumer Participation in Health ; 2000
11. McBride T, Korczak V. Community consultation and engagement in health care reform. Aust Health Rev. 2007 ; 31: S13-5
12. Mooney GH, Blackwell SH. Whose health service is it anyway? Community values in healthcare. Med J Aust. 2004 ; 180 (2). 76-8
13. Shackley P, Ryan M. Involving consumers in health care decision making. Health Care Anal. 1995 ; 3 (3). 196-204
14. Mullen PM. Public involvement in health care priority setting: an overview of methods for eliciting values. Health Expect. 1999 ; 2 (4). 222-34
15. Aldrich R, Mooney G. Agenda-setting in health reform: the role of community. Aust Health Rev. 2001 ; 24 (1). 161-5
16. Florin D, Dixon J. Public involvement in health care. Br Med J. 2004 ; 328 (7432). 159-61
17. Gilbert D, Walley T, New B. Lifestyle medicines. Br Med J. 2000 ; 321 (7272). 1341-4
18. Whitty JA. An international survey of the public engagement practices of Health Technology Assessment Organisations. Value Health. 2013 ; 16: 155-63
19. Littlejohns P, Weale A, Chalkidou K, Faden R, Teerawattananon Y. Social values and health policy: a new international research programme. J Health Organ Manag. 2012 ; 26 (3). 285-92
20. Lancsar E, Wildman J, Donaldson C, Ryan M, Baker R. Deriving distributional weights for QALYs through discrete choice experiments. J Health Econ. 2011 ; 30 (2). 466-78
21. Tony M, Wagner M, Khoury H, et al. Bridging health technology assessment (HTA) with multicriteria decision analyses (MCDA): field testing of the EVIDEM framework for coverage decisions by a public payer in Canada. BMC Health Serv Res. 2011 ; 11: 329
22. Mortimer D, Segal L. Is the value of a life or life-year saved context specific? Further evidence from a discrete choice experiment. Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2008 ; 6: 8
23. Green C, Gerard K. Exploring the social value of health-care interventions: a stated preference discrete choice experiment. Health Econ. 2009 ; 18 (8). 951-76
24. Whitty JA, Rundle-Thiele SR, Scuffham PA. Insights into public preferences for pharmaceutical funding. International Journal of Pharmaceutical and Healthcare Marketing. 2008 ; 2 (3). 216-34
25. Whitty JA, Scuffham PA, Rundle-Thiele SR. Public and decision maker stated preferences for pharmaceutical subsidy decisions: a pilot study. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2011 ; 9 (2). 73-9
26. Flynn TN. Valuing citizen and patient preferences in health: recent developments in three types of best-worst scaling. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2010 ; 10 (3). 259-67
27. Flynn TN, Louviere JJ, Peters TJ, Coast J. Best-worst scaling: what it can do for health care research and how to do it. J Health Econ. 2007 ; 26 (1). 171-89
28. Dolan P, Olsen JA, Menzel P, Richardson J. An inquiry into the different perspectives that can be used when eliciting preferences in health. Health Econ. 2003 ; 12: 545-51
29. Al-Janabi H, Flynn TN, Coast J. Estimation of a preference-based carer experience scale. Med Decis Making. 2011 ; 31: 458-68
30. Ratcliffe J, Flynn T, Terlich F, Stevens K, Brazier J, Sawyer M. Developing adolescent-specific health state values for economic evaluation: an application of profile case best-worst scaling to the Child Health Utility 9D. Pharmacoeconomics. 2012 ; 30 (8). 713-27
31. Coast J, Flynn TN, Natarajan L, et al. Valuing the ICECAP capability index for older people. Soc Sci Med. 2008 ; 67 (5). 874-82
32. Coast J, Salisbury C, de Berker D, et al. Preferences for aspects of a dermatology consultation. Br J Dermatol. 2006 ; 155 (2). 387-92
33. Louviere JJ, Flynn TN. Using best-worst scaling choice experiments to measure public perceptions and preferences for healthcare reform in Australia. Patient. 2010 ; 3 (4). 275-83
34. Scuffham PA, Whitty JA, Taylor M, Saxby R. Health system choice: a pilot discrete choice experiment eliciting the preferences of British and Australian citizens. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2010 ; 8 (2). 89-97
35. Johnson FR, Backhouse M. Eliciting stated preferences for health-technology adoption criteria using paired comparisons and recommendation judgements. Value Health. 2006 ; 9 (5). 303-11
36. 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
37. Flynn TN, Peters TJ, Coast J. Quantifying response shift or adaptation effects in quality of life by synthesising best-worst scaling and discrete choice data. Journal of Choice Modelling. 2013 ; 6: 34-43
38. Yoo HI, Doiron D. The use of alternative preference elicitation methods in complex discrete choice experiments. J Health Econ. 2013 ; 32 (6). 1166-79
39. Yoongthong W, Hu S, Whitty JA, et al. National drug policies to local formulary decisions in Thailand, China, and Australia: drug listing changes and opportunities. Value Health. 2012 ; 15: S126-31
40. Centre for Healthcare Improvement. Health Technology Assessment (HTA) in Queensland. Available at http://www.health.qld.gov.au/newtech/default.asp. Brisbane, Queensland, Australia: Queensland Health; 2012.
41. Brisbane, Queensland, Australia: Queensland Health ; 2012
42. Dolan P, Shaw R, Tsuchiya A, Williams A. QALY maximisation and people's preferences: a methodological review of the literature. Health Econ. 2005 ; 14 (2). 197-208
43. Schwappach DLB. Resource allocation, social values and the QALY: a review of the debate and empirical evidence. Health Expect. 2002 ; 5 (3). 210-22
44. Tappenden P, Brazier J, Ratcliffe J, Chilcott J. A stated preference binary choice experiment to explore NICE decision making. Pharmacoeconomics. 2007 ; 25 (8). 685-93
45. Harris AH, Hill SR, Chin G, Li JJ, Walkom E. The role of value for money in public insurance coverage decisions for drugs in Australia: a retrospective analysis 1994-2004. Med Decis Making. 2008 ; 28 (5). 713-22
46. Dakin HA, Devlin NJ, Odeyemi IA. "Yes,""No" or "Yes, but"? Multinomial modelling of NICE decision-making. Health Policy. 2006 ; 77 (3). 352-67
47. 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 (5). 437-52
48. Johri M, Damschroder LJ, Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Ubel PA. The importance of age in allocating health care resources: does intervention-type matter?. Health Econ. 2005 ; 14 (7). 669-78
49. Ngene [computer program]. Version 1.1.1. http://choice-metrics.com. ChoiceMetrics Pty Ltd; 2012.
50. Hensher DA, Rose JM, Greene WH New York: Cambridge University Press ; 2005
51. Viney R, Norman R, King MT, et al. Time trade-off derived EQ-5D weights for Australia. Value Health. 2011 ; 14 (6). 928-36
52. Bansback N, Brazier J, Tsuchiya A, Anis A. Using a discrete choice experiment to estimate health state utility values. J Health Econ. 2012 ; 31 (1). 306-18
53. Lancsar E, Louviere J. Conducting discrete choice experiments to inform healthcare decision making: a user's guide. Pharmacoeconomics. 2008 ; 26 (8). 661-77
54. Marshall D, Bridges JFP, Hauber B, et al. Conjoint analysis applications in health - how are studies being designed and reported?. Patient. 2010 ; 3 (4). 249-56
55. Plainview (NY): Econometric Software, Inc. ; 2012
56. Manski CF. The structure of random utility models. Theory Decis. 1977 ; 8: 229-54
57. McFadden D Frontiers in Econometrics. Zarembka P, ed. New York: Academic Press ; 1974: 105-42.
58. Thurstone L. A law of comparative judgement. Psychol Rev. 1927 ; 4: 273-86
59. Fiebig DG, Keane MP, Louviere JJ, Wasi N. The generalized multinomial logit model: accounting for scale and coefficient heterogeneity. Marketing Science. 2010 ; 29: 393-421
60. Flynn TN, Louviere JJ, Peters TJ, Coast J. Using discrete choice experiments to understand preferences for quality of life: variance-scale heterogeneity matters. Soc Sci Med. 2010 ; 70 (12). 1957-65
61. Louviere JJ, Lancsar E. Choice experiments in health: the good, the bad, the ugly and toward a brighter future. Health Econ Policy Law. 2009 ; 4 (Pt 4). 527-46
62. Train K 2 nd ed.New York: Cambridge University Press; 2009. New York: Cambridge University Press ; 2009
63. Swait J, Louviere J. The role of the scale parameter in the estimation and comparison of multinomial logit models. J Mark Res. 1993 ; 30 (3). 305-14
64. Lancsar E, Louviere J. Deleting "irrational" responses from discrete choice experiments: a case of investigating or imposing preferences?. Health Econ. 2006 ; 15 (8). 797-811
65. Bosworth R, Cameron TA, DeShazo JR. Is an ounce of prevention worth a pound of cure? Comparing demand for public prevention and treatment policies. Med Decis Making. 2010 ; 30 (4). E40-56
66. Zethraeus N, Borgstrom F, Strom O, Kanis JA, Jonsson B. Cost-effectiveness of the treatment and prevention of osteoporosis - a review of the literature and a reference model. Osteoporos Int. 2007 ; 18 (1). 9-23
67. Goetzel RZ. Do prevention or treatment services save money? The wrong debate. Health Aff (Millwood). 2009 ; 28 (1). 37-41
68. Tsuchiya A. Age-related preferences and age weighting health benefits. Soc Sci Med. 1999 ; 48 (2). 267-76
69. Marley AAJ, Flynn TN, Louviere JJ. Probabilistic models of set-dependent and attribute-level best-worst choice. J Math Psychol. 2008 ; 52: 283-98
70. Busemeyer JR, Barkan R, Mehta S, Chaturvedi A. Context effects and models of preferential choice: implications for consumer behavior. Marketing Theory. 2007 ; 7 (39). 39-58
71. Holyk GG Encyclopedia of Survey Research Methods. Lavrakas PJ, ed. Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage Publications ; 2008: 143.
72. Hess S, Rose JM. Can scale and coefficient heterogeneity be separated in random coefficients models?. Transportation. 2012 ; 39 (6). 1225-39
73. Fiebig DG, Knox S, Viney R, Haas M, Street DJ. Preferences for new and existing contraceptive products. Health Econ. 2011 ; 20: 35-52
74. Hess S, Stathopoulos A. Linking response quality to survey engagement: a combined random scale and latent variable approach. Journal of Choice Modelling. 2013 ; 7: 1-12
75. Dolan P, Cookson R, Ferguson B. Effect of discussion and deliberation on the public's views of priority setting in health care: focus group study. Br Med J. 1999 ; 318: 916-19
76. Belconnen, Canberra: Australian Capital Territory: Australian Bureau of Statistics ; 2006
77. Belconnen, Canberra: Australian Capital Territory: Australian Bureau of Statistics ; 2012
78. Belconnen, Canberra: Australian Capital Territory: Australian Bureau of Statistics ; 2010
79. Belconnen, Canberra: Australian Capital Territory: Australian Bureau of Statistics ; 2001
80. Belconnen, Canberra: Australian Capital Territory: Australian Bureau of Statistics ; 2012
81. Daly A, Hess S, de Jong G. Calculating errors for measures derived from choice modelling estimates. Transportation Research Part B. 2012 ; 46: 333-41