Women's and healthcare professionals' preferences for prenatal testing: A discrete choice experiment

Prenatal Diagnosis

Volumn 35, Issue 6, 2015, Pages 549-557

  Beulen, Lean ^a   Grutters, Janneke P C ^a   Faas, Brigitte H W ^a   Feenstra, Ilse ^a   Groenewoud, Hans ^a   van Vugt, John M G ^a   Bekker, Mireille N ^a  

^a RADBOUD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ARTICLE; CHROMOSOME ANALYSIS; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DISEASE PREDISPOSITION; FALSE POSITIVE RESULT; FEMALE; GESTATIONAL AGE; HEALTH CARE COST; HEALTH PERSONNEL ATTITUDE; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MEDICAL INFORMATION; PATIENT PREFERENCE; PREGNANT WOMAN; PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS; PRENATAL SCREENING; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUESTIONNAIRE; SPONTANEOUS ABORTION; ABORTION, SPONTANEOUS; ADVERSE EFFECTS; DECISION MAKING; ECONOMICS; LABORATORY DIAGNOSIS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MIDWIFE; OBSTETRICS; PREGNANCY; PROCEDURES; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; TIME FACTOR; YOUNG ADULT;

ABORTION, SPONTANEOUS; ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ATTITUDE OF HEALTH PERSONNEL; CHOICE BEHAVIOR; FALSE POSITIVE REACTIONS; FEMALE; GESTATIONAL AGE; HEALTH CARE COSTS; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MIDWIFERY; OBSTETRICS; PATIENT PREFERENCE; PREGNANCY; PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SURVEYS AND QUESTIONNAIRES; TIME FACTORS; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84930373672     PISSN: 01973851     EISSN: 10970223     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/pd.4571     Document Type: Article

References (13)

1. Bridges JFP, Hauber AB, Marshall D, et al. Conjoint analysis applications in health - a checklist: a report of the ISPOR good research practices for conjoint analysis task force. Value Health 2011;14;403-13.
2. Ryan M, Farrar S. Using conjoint analysis to elicit preferences for health care. BMJ 2000;320:1530-3.
3. Ryan M, Scott DA, Reeves C, et al. Eliciting public preferences for healthcare: a systematic review of techniques. Health Technol Assess 2001;5:1-186.
4. Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Torrance GW, et al. Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes. Oxford University Press: New York; 2005.
5. Johnson FR, Lancsar E, Marshall D, et al. Constructing experimental designs for discrete-choice experiments: report of the ISPOR conjoint analysis experimental design good research practices task force. Value Health 2013;16;3-13.
6. Burton P, Gurrin L, Sly P. Extending the simple linear regression model to account for correlated responses: an introduction to generalized estimating equations and multilevel mixed modelling. Stat Med 1998;17:1261-91.
7. Bishop AJ, Marteau TM, Armstrong D, et al. Women and health care professionals' preferences for Down's syndrome screening tests: a conjoint analysis study. BJOG 2004;111:775-9.
8. Lewis SM, Cullinane FN, Bishop AJ, et al. A comparison of Australian and UK obstetricians' and midwives' preferences for screening test for Down syndrome. Prenat Diagn 2006;26:60-6.
9. Lewis SM, Cullinane FN, Carlin JB, Halliday JL. Women's and health professionals' preferences for prenatal testing for Down syndrome in Australia. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2006;46:205-11.
10. Carroll FE, Al-Janabi H, Flynn T, Montgomery AA. Women and their partners' preferences for Down's syndrome screening tests: a discrete choice experiment. Prenat Diagn 2013;33:449-56.
11. Ryan M, Diack J, Watson V, Smith N. Rapid prenatal diagnostic testing for Down syndrome only or longer wait for full karyotype: the views of pregnant women. Prenat Diagn 2005;25:1206-11.
12. Chan YM, Sahota DS, Leung TY, et al. Chinese women's preferences for prenatal diagnostic procedure and their willingness to trade between procedures. Prenat Diagn 2009;29:1270-6.
13. Hill M, Fisher J, Chitty LS, Morris S. Women's and health professionals' preferences for prenatal tests for Down syndrome: a discrete choice experiment to contrast noninvasive prenatal diagnosis with current invasive tests. Genet Med 2012;14:905-13.