IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v50y2000i1p63-75.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Using discrete choice modelling in priority setting: an application to clinical service developments

Author

Listed:
  • Farrar, Shelley
  • Ryan, Mandy
  • Ross, Donald
  • Ludbrook, Anne

Abstract

Limited resources for health care means that techniques are required to aid the process of priority setting. This paper represents one of the first attempts to use discrete choice modelling (DCM) within the area of priority setting. It is shown how the technique can be used to estimate cost per unit of benefit ratios for competing clinical service developments. Integer programming is proposed as a method to be used, alongside DCM, to help policy makers select the optimal combination of clinical service developments within a given budget. The technique is also shown to be internally valid and internally consistent. It is argued that DCM is a potentially useful technique to be used within the area of priority setting more generally. However, further work is required to address methodological issues around the technique.

Suggested Citation

  • Farrar, Shelley & Ryan, Mandy & Ross, Donald & Ludbrook, Anne, 2000. "Using discrete choice modelling in priority setting: an application to clinical service developments," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 50(1), pages 63-75, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:50:y:2000:i:1:p:63-75
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277-9536(99)00268-3
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Clark, Michael & Moro, Domenico & Szczepura, Ala, 2009. "Balancing patient preferences and clinical needs: Community versus hospital based care for patients with suspected DVT," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 90(2-3), pages 313-319, May.
    2. Seda Erdem & Danny Campbell & Arne Risa Hole, 2015. "Accounting for Attribute‐Level Non‐Attendance in a Health Choice Experiment: Does it Matter?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 24(7), pages 773-789, July.
    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, August.
    4. Lieke H. H. M. Boonen & Frederik T. Schut & Xander Koolman, 2008. "Consumer channeling by health insurers: natural experiments with preferred providers in the Dutch pharmacy market," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 17(3), pages 299-316, March.
    5. Joanna Coast, 2001. "Citizens, their agents and health care rationing: an exploratory study using qualitative methods," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 10(2), pages 159-174, March.
    6. Schwappach, David L.B. & Strasmann, Thomas J., 2006. ""Quick and dirty numbers"?: The reliability of a stated-preference technique for the measurement of preferences for resource allocation," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(3), pages 432-448, May.
    7. Rosalie Viney & Elizabeth Savage & Jordan Louviere, 2005. "Empirical investigation of experimental design properties of discrete choice experiments in health care," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(4), pages 349-362, April.
    8. Flynn, Terry N. & Louviere, Jordan J. & Peters, Tim J. & Coast, Joanna, 2007. "Best-worst scaling: What it can do for health care research and how to do it," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 171-189, January.
    9. 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.
    10. Tsuchiya, Aki & Dolan, Paul, 2007. "Do NHS clinicians and members of the public share the same views about reducing inequalities in health?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 64(12), pages 2499-2503, June.
    11. Stirling Bryan & Paul Dolan, 2004. "Discrete choice experiments in health economics," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 5(3), pages 199-202, September.
    12. Philips, Hilde & Mahr, Dominik & Remmen, Roy & Weverbergh, Marcel & De Graeve, Diana & Van Royen, Paul, 2012. "Predicting the place of out-of-hours care—A market simulation based on discrete choice analysis," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 106(3), pages 284-290.
    13. Angelina L�zaro Alqu�zar & Bego�a �lvarez Farizo, 2006. "Prioritisation of patients on waiting lists: a community workshop approach," Documentos de Trabajo dt2006-08, Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Empresariales, Universidad de Zaragoza.
    14. Ratcliffe, Julie & Bekker, Hilary L. & Dolan, Paul & Edlin, Richard, 2009. "Examining the attitudes and preferences of health care decision-makers in relation to access, equity and cost-effectiveness: A discrete choice experiment," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 90(1), pages 45-57, April.
    15. Colin Green & Karen Gerard, 2009. "Exploring the social value of health‐care interventions: a stated preference discrete choice experiment," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(8), pages 951-976, August.
    16. 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.
    17. Tima Mohammadi & Wei Zhang & Julie Sou & Sylvie Langlois & Sarah Munro & Aslam H. Anis, 2020. "A Hierarchical Bayes Approach to Modeling Heterogeneity in Discrete Choice Experiments: An Application to Public Preferences for Prenatal Screening," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 13(2), pages 211-223, April.
    18. Jennifer Whitty & Sharyn Rundle-Thiele & Paul Scuffham, 2012. "Insights from triangulation of two purchase choice elicitation methods to predict social decision making in healthcare," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 10(2), pages 113-126, March.
    19. Lettieri, Emanuele & Masella, Cristina, 2009. "Priority setting for technology adoption at a hospital level: Relevant issues from the literature," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 90(1), pages 81-88, April.
    20. Jennifer Priaulx & Marcell Csanádi & Harry J. de Koning & Martin McKee, 2019. "A choice experiment to identify the most important elements of a successful cancer screening program according to those who research and manage such programs," International Journal of Health Planning and Management, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 34(1), pages 34-45, January.
    21. David L.B. Schwappach, 2003. "Does it matter who you are or what you gain? an experimental study of preferences for resource allocation," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(4), pages 255-267, April.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:50:y:2000:i:1:p:63-75. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.