Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

Using conjoint analysis to take account of patient preferences and go beyond health outcomes: an application to in vitro fertilisation

Contents:

Author Info

  • Ryan, Mandy
Registered author(s):

    Abstract

    There has been an assumption in the health economics literature that health outcomes are all that need to be considered when attempting to measure the benefits from health care interventions. This is most evident in the development of the quality adjusted life year (QALY) approach to benefit assessment. This paper challenges this view and considers the technique of conjoint analysis (CA) as a methodology for both taking account of patient preferences and considering attributes beyond health outcomes. The technique is applied to in vitro fertilisation. CA is shown to be sensitive to considering health outcomes, nonhealth outcomes and process attributes. It is also shown to be internally consistent and internally valid. The paper demonstrates the application of CA to estimating willingness to pay indirectly. It is argued that benefit assessment within health economics should extend beyond health outcomes and future research should investigate more thoroughly the potential application of CA in this area. However, methodological issues need addressing before the instrument becomes an established evaluative instrument.

    Download Info

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6VBF-3VGC5MF-X/2/e74f5862354026c374d9f68ce8f9910b
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

    Bibliographic Info

    Article provided by Elsevier in its journal Social Science & Medicine.

    Volume (Year): 48 (1999)
    Issue (Month): 4 (February)
    Pages: 535-546

    as in new window
    Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:48:y:1999:i:4:p:535-546

    Contact details of provider:
    Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description

    Order Information:
    Postal: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/supportfaq.cws_home/regional
    Web: http://www.elsevier.com/orderme/journalorderform.cws_home/315/journalorderform1/orderooc/id=654&ref=654_01_ooc_1&version=01

    Related research

    Keywords: Health economics Patient preferences Conjoint analysis Willingness to pay In vitro fertilisation;

    References

    No references listed on IDEAS
    You can help add them by filling out this form.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as in new window

    Cited by:
    1. Biesma, R.G. & Pavlova, M. & van Merode, G.G. & Groot, W., 2007. "Using conjoint analysis to estimate employers preferences for key competencies of master level Dutch graduates entering the public health field," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 375-386, June.
    2. Bech, Mickael, 2003. "Politicians' and hospital managers' trade-offs in the choice of reimbursement scheme: a discrete choice experiment," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 66(3), pages 261-275, December.
    3. Debby van Helvoort-Postulart & Benedict G. C. Dellaert & Trudy van der Weijden & Maarten F. von Meyenfeldt & Carmen D. Dirksen, 2009. "Discrete choice experiments for complex health-care decisions: does hierarchical information integration offer a solution?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(8), pages 903-920.
    4. Dorte Gyrd-Hansen, 2003. "Willingness to pay for a QALY," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(12), pages 1049-1060.
    5. Pokhrel, Subhash & Snow, Rachel & Dong, Hengjin & Hidayat, Budi & Flessa, Steffen & Sauerborn, Rainer, 2005. "Gender role and child health care utilization in Nepal," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(1), pages 100-109, September.
    6. Poulos, Christine & Yang, Jui-Chen & Patil, Sumeet R. & Pattanayak, Subhrendu & Wood, Siri & Goodyear, Lorelei & Gonzalez, Juan Marcos, 2012. "Consumer preferences for household water treatment products in Andhra Pradesh, India," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 75(4), pages 738-746.
    7. Mataria, Awad & Giacaman, Rita & Khatib, Rana & Moatti, Jean-Paul, 2006. "Impoverishment and patients' "willingness" and "ability" to pay for improving the quality of health care in Palestine: An assessment using the contingent valuation method," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 75(3), pages 312-328, February.
    8. Borghi, Josephine & Jan, Stephen, 2008. "Measuring the benefits of health promotion programmes: Application of the contingent valuation method," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 87(2), pages 235-248, August.
    9. Kirsten Howard & Glenn Salkeld & Kirsten McCaffery & Les Irwig, 2008. "HPV triage testing or repeat Pap smear for the management of atypical squamous cells (ASCUS) on Pap smear: is there evidence of process utility?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 17(5), pages 593-605.
    10. Alessandro Mengoni & Chiara Seghieri & Sabina Nuti, 2013. "The application of discrete choice experiments in health economics: a systematic review of the literature," Working Papers 201301, Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna of Pisa, Istituto di Management.
    11. Emily Lancsar, 2002. "Deriving welfare measures from stated preference discrete choice modelling experiments, CHERE Discussion Paper No 48," Discussion Papers 48, CHERE, University of Technology, Sydney.
    12. Karen Gerard & Marian Shanahan & Jordan Louviere, 2003. "Using stated preference discrete choice modelling to inform health care decision-making: A pilot study of breast screening participation," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 35(9), pages 1073-1085.

    Lists

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:48:y:1999:i:4:p:535-546. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Zhang, Lei).

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.