1,721,107 research outputs found
Selecting perspective for preference elicitation at resource allocation level: an empirical investigation using a choice experiment
No full textUsing discrete choice experiments to value health care programmes: current practice and future research reflections
No full textThere has been growing interest in discrete choice experiments (DCEs) in health economics over the last few years. This paper identifies and describes applications conducted during 1990-2000. From this basis some important areas for future research are reflected upon. These include: having a better understanding of how respondents interpret price, risk and time attributes; strengthening designs and analysis; investigating decision making heuristics employed when completing DCEs, and the extent these are related to the complexity of the task, external validity, reliability and generalisability. Collaborative work with statistical design experts, psychologists, sociologists and qualitative researchers will prove useful when investigating these issues. It is also critical to link, more generally, the research agenda to work being carried out in marketing, transport and environmental economics and health economics benefit assessment
Heterogeneity and uncertainty in open-ended contingent valuation questions: an application to the valuation of informal care
No full textValuing health care using willingness to pay: a comparison of the payment card and dichotomous choice methods
No full textThis paper compares willingness to pay (WTP) estimates generated from the dichotomous choice (DC) and payment card (PC) approaches. In a split-sample WTP experiment concerned with allocating scarce health care resources across three health care interventions, the DC approach is shown consistently to generate larger welfare estimates than the PC. Observed difference between PC and DC experiments cannot be explained by the inclusion of non-demanders or methods of statistical analysis but may be partly explained by "yea-saying". No evidence of range bias or mid-point bias was found with PC responses. Data were also collected on respondents' ordinal rankings of the three interventions and person-trade-offs (PTOs). Neither of these approaches converged with WTP. Future work must address the decision heuristics individuals employ when responding to valuation experiments.</p
Practical issues in conducting a discrete choice experiment
No full textThis chapter walks the reader through the stages of a discrete choice experiment (DCE) application drawing on concepts introduced in Chapters 1 and 2. A case study eliciting women’s preferences for prenatal screening is used to illustrate the points (Ryan et al., 2005). It should be noted that this data was collected several years ago, and therefore adopted old methods of experimental design. The sample size is also small.We have chosen it because it demonstrates nicely the many potential uses of a DCE, it addressed a policy-relevant question at the time, and it represents one of the few studies in health economics where the scientists (geneticists) worked with the evaluators (economists) and implementers (obstetricians) to look at development, evaluation and implementation of prenatal screening programmes. <br/
Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature
No full textDiscrete choice experiments (DCEs) have become a commonly used instrument in health economics. This paper updates a review of published papers between 1990 and 2000 for the years 2001–2008. Based on this previous review, and a number of other key review papers, focus is given to three issues: experimental design; estimation procedures; and validity of responses. Consideration is also given to how DCEs are applied and reported. We identified 114 DCEs, covering a wide range of policy questions. Applications took place in a broader range of health-care systems, and there has been a move to incorporating fewer attributes, more choices and interview-based surveys. There has also been a shift towards statistically more efficient designs and flexible econometric models. The reporting of monetary values continues to be popular, the use of utility scores has not gained popularity, and there has been an increasing use of odds ratios and probabilities. The latter are likely to be useful at the policy level to investigate take-up and acceptability of new interventions. Incorporation of interactions terms in the design and analysis of DCEs, explanations of risk, tests of external validity and incorporation of DCE results into a decision-making framework remain important areas for future research. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.<br/
Concluding thoughts
No full textOver the last 15 years, discrete choice experiments (DCEs) have proved a very useful technique both within the framework of an economic evaluation, and for modelling behaviour and preferences in a variety of contexts within health economics. This book has presented important issues in the design and analysis of DCEs (Part 1), demonstrated their application in a number of different settings in the health and health care arena (Part 2) and looked at some emerging methodological issues (Part 3)
Who cares and how much: Exploring the determinants of co-residential informal care
No full textThe importance of informal care provided inside the household (co-residential care) is widely acknowledged in policy circles. However, the factors that determine the likelihood and scale of provision are not fully understood. A two-part model (2PM) is used to investigate both participation and levels of provision. Random effects dynamic panel specifications are employed. Results show that co-residential informal care competes with other time demanding activities, such as childcare and employment. Wealthier individuals are less likely to be caregivers, whereas wealthier households have a higher tendency towards caregiving. Evidence of both substitution and complementarity is found between formal and informal care. Informal care and health status are significantly related, with carers more likely to report worse General Health Questionnaire scores than non-carers. Finally, significant dynamic effects are observed with the continuance of the provision of informal care being more likely than the initiation of such activity, while heavy commitment in the past increases the hours provided in the current period
- …
