Elimination and selection by aspects in health choice experiments: Prioritising health service innovations

Journal of Health Economics

Volumn 38, Issue , 2014, Pages 10-22

  Erdem, Seda ^a   Campbell, Danny ^a   Thompson, Carl ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF STIRLING   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF YORK   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Discrete choice experiments; Elimination by aspects; Health service innovations; Latent class logit model; Selection by aspects

Indexed keywords

DISCRETE CHOICE ANALYSIS; HEALTH SERVICES; NUMERICAL MODEL; PUBLIC HEALTH; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

ARTICLE; ATTITUDE TO HEALTH; CONTROLLED STUDY; DECISION MAKING; DISCRETE CHOICE EXPERIMENT; ELIMINATION BY ASPECT; HEALTH CARE PLANNING; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HEALTH CARE PRACTICE; HEALTH CARE UTILIZATION; HEALTH PROGRAM; HEALTH SERVICE; HEALTH SERVICE INNOVATION; HEALTH SURVEY; HUMAN; MATHEMATICAL COMPUTING; METHODOLOGY; SELECTION BY ASPECT; FEMALE; MALE; MASS COMMUNICATION; MIDDLE AGED; QUESTIONNAIRE; STATISTICAL MODEL;

CHOICE BEHAVIOR; DIFFUSION OF INNOVATION; FEMALE; HEALTH SERVICES; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MODELS, STATISTICAL; SURVEYS AND QUESTIONNAIRES;

EID: 84922277072     PISSN: 01676296     EISSN: 18791646     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhealeco.2014.06.012     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Barber R., Boote J.D., Parry G.D., Cooper C.L., Yeeles P., Cook S. Can the impact of public involvement on research be evaluated? A mixed methods study. Health Expect. 2011, 15:229-241.
2. Batley R., Daly A. On the equivalence between elimination-by-aspects and generalised extreme value models of choice behaviour. J. Math. Psychol. 2006, 50:456-467.
3. Beresford P. Developing the theoretical basis for service user/survivor-led research and equal involvement in research. Epidemiol. Psichiatr. Soc. 2005, 14(1):4-9.
4. Boote J., Baird W., Beecroft C. Public involvement at the design stage of primary health research: a narrative review of case examples. Health Policy 2010, 95(1):10-23.
5. Cairns J., Van der Pol M. The estimation of marginal time preference in a UK-wide sample (TEMPUS) project. Health Technol. Assess. 2000, 4(1):1-4.
6. Campbell D., Hensher D.A., Scarpa R. Bounding WTP distributions to reflect the 'actual' consideration set. J. Choice Model. 2014, 11:4-15.
7. Campbell D., Hensher D.A., Scarpa R. Cost thresholds, cut-offs and sensitivities in stated choice analysis: identification and implications. Resour. Energy Econ. 2012, 34(3):396-411.
8. Campbell D., Hensher D., Scarpa R. Non-attendance to attributes in environmental choice analysis: a latent class specification. J. Environ. Plan. Manage. 2011, 54(8):1061-1076.
9. Campbell D., Hutchinson W.G., Scarpa R. Incorporating discontinuous preferences into the analysis of discrete choice experiments. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2008, 41(3):101-117.
10. Carlsson F., Kataria M., Lampi E. Dealing with ignored attributes in choice experiments on valuation of Sweden's environmental quality objectives. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2010, 47(1):65-89.
11. Cashman S.B., Adeky S., Allen A.J., Corburn J., Israel B.A., Montano J., Rafelito A., Rhodes S.D., Swanston S., Wallerstein N., Eng E. The power and the promise: working with communities to analyze data, interpret findings, and get to outcomes. Am. J. Public Health 2008, 98(8):1407-1417.
12. Chambers S.A., Traill W.B. What the UK public believes causes obesity, and what they want to do about it: a cross-sectional study. J. Public Health Policy 2011, 32(4):430-444.
13. Cotterell P. Exploring the value of service user involvement in data analysis: our interpretation is about what lies below the surface. Educ. Action Res. 2007, 16(1):5-7.
14. de Bekker-Grob E., Ryan M., Gerard K. Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature. Health Econ. 2012, 21:145-172.
15. Dyer S. Rationalising public participation in the health service: the case of research ethics committees. Health Place 2004, 10:339-348.
16. Erdem S., Campbell D., Hole A.R. Accounting for attribute-level non-attendance in a health choice experiment: does it matter?. Health Econ. 2014, (in press). 10.1002/hec.3059.
17. Florin D., Dixon J. Public involvement in health care. Br. Med. J. 2004, 328(7432):159-161.
18. Gerard K., Tinelli M., Latter S., Blenkinsopp A., Smith A. Valuing the extended role of prescribing pharmacist in general practice: results from a discrete choice experiment. Value Health 2012, 15(5):699-707.
19. Gigerenzer G., Gaissmaier W. Heuristic decision making. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2011, 62:451-482.
20. Green C., Gerard K. Exploring the social value of health-care interventions: a stated preference discrete choice experiment. Health Econ. 2009, 18(8):951-976.
21. Grimshaw J., Thomas R., MacLennan G., Fraser C., Ramsay C., Vale L., Whitty P., Eccles M., Matowe L., Shirran L., Wensing M., Dijkstra R., Donaldson C. Effectiveness and efficiency of guideline dissemination and implementation strategies. Health Technol. Assess. 2004, 8(6):1-72.
22. Guo N., Marra C., FitzGerald J., Elwood R., Anis A., Marra F. Patient preference for latent tuberculosis infection preventive treatment: a discrete choice experiment. Value Health 2011, 14(6):937-943.
23. Harris A., Mortimer D. A Preventative Priorities Advisory Committee and Prevention Benefits Schedule for Australia 2008, Centre for Health Economics Working Paper, Monash University.
24. Health Canada Public Involvement Framework, Government Report 2005.
25. Hensher D. How do respondents process stated choice experiments? Attribute consideration under varying information load. J. Appl. Econometr. 2006, 21:861-878.
26. Hensher D., Rose J., Greene W. The implications on willingness to pay of respondents ignoring specific attributes. Transportation 2005, 32:203-222.
27. Hensher D., Rose J., Greene W. Inferring attribute non-attendance from stated choice data: implications for willingness to pay estimates and a warning for stated choice experiment design. Transportation 2012, 39(2):235-245.
28. Hess S., Stathopoulos A. Allowing for heterogeneous decision rules in discrete choice models: an approach and four case studies. Transportation 2012, 39:565-591.
29. Hess S., Stathopoulos A., Campbell D., O'Neill V., Caussade S. It's not that I don't care, I just don't care very much: confounding between attribute non-attendance and taste heterogeneity. Transportation 2013, 40:583-607.
30. Hole A.R., Kolstad J., Gyrd-Hansen D. Inferred vs. stated attribute non-attendance in choice experiments: a study of doctors' prescription behaviour. J. Econ. Behav. Org. 2013, 96:21-31.
31. Lagarde M. Investigating attribute non-attendance and its consequences in choice experiments with latent class models. Health Econ. 2012, 22(5):554-567.
32. Lund T.B., Sandœ P., Lassen J. Attitudes to publicly funded obesity treatment and prevention. Obesity 2011, 19(8):1580-1585.
33. Mirelman A., Mentzakis E., Kinter E., Paolucci F., Fordham R., Ozawa S., Ferraz M., Baltussen R., Niessen L.W. Decision-making criteria among national policymakers in five countries: a discrete choice experiment eliciting relative preferences for equity and efficiency. Value Health 2012, 15(3):534-539.
34. Obesity: Guidance on the Prevention, Identification Assessment and Management of Overweight and Obesity in Adults and Children 2006, National Collaborating Centre for Primary Care and the Centre for Public Health Excellence at the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, United Kingdom.
35. Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal 2008, National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, United Kingdom.
36. O'Donnell M., Entwistle V. Consumer involvement in decisions about what health-related research is funded. Health Policy 2004, 70(3):281-290.
37. Olsen J. Theories of justice and their implications for priority-setting in health care. J. Health Econ. 1997, 17:625-640.
38. O'Shea E., Gannon B., Kennelly B. Eliciting preferences for resource allocation in mental health care in Ireland. Health Policy 2008, 88(2-3):359-370.
39. Ryan M., Scott D.A., Reeves C., Bate A., van Teijlingen E.R., Russell E.M., Napper M., Robb C.M. Eliciting public preferences for healthcare: a systematic review of techniques. Health Technol. Assess. 2001, 5(5):1-186.
40. Ryan M., Watson V., Entwistle V. Rationalising the 'irrational': a think aloud study of discrete choice experiment responses. Health Econ. 2009, 18(3):321-336.
41. Scarpa R., Rose J. Design efficiency for non-market valuation with choice modelling: how to measure it, what to report and why. Aust. J. Agr. Resour. Econ. 2008, 52(3):253-282.
42. Scarpa R., Zanoli R., Bruschi V., Naspetti S. Inferred and stated attribute non-attendance in food choice experiments. Am. J. Agr. Econ. 2013, 95(1):165-180.
43. Sikorski C., Luppa M., Schomerus G., Werner P., König H.-H., Riedel-Heller S.G. Public attitudes towards prevention of obesity. PLoS ONE 2012, 7(6):e39325.
44. Thompson J., Barber R., Ward P.R., Boote J.D., Cooper C.L., Armitage C.J., Jones G. Health researchers' attitudes towards public involvement in health research. Health Expect. 2009, 12(2):209-220.
45. The King's Fund Public Involvement in Health Services 2010.
46. Torbica A., Fattore G., Ayala F. Eliciting preferences to inform patient-centred policies: the case of psoriasis. Pharmacoeconomics 2014, 32(2):209-223.
47. Tsuchiya A. Age-related preferences and age weighting health benefits. Soc. Sci. Med. 1999, 48(2):267-276.
48. Tversky A. Choice by elimination. J. Math. Psychol. 1972, 9(4):341-367.
49. Tversky A. Elimination by aspects: a theory of choice. Psychol. Rev. 1972, 79(4):281-299.
50. UK House of Commons The Health and Social Care Act 2012, Stationery Office, London.