IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/applec/v32y2000i7p823-833.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Applying conjoint analysis in economic evaluations: an application to menorrhagia

Author

Listed:
  • Fernando San Miguel
  • Mandy Ryan
  • Emma McIntosh

Abstract

The increased demand for health care, coupled with limited resources, means that decisions have to be made concerning the allocation of scarce health care resources. This paper considers how conjoint analysis (CA) can be used to aid this decision making process. It is shown how the technique can be used to estimate marginal rates of substitution between attributes, willingness to pay (WTP) if cost is included as an attribute and overall utility scores for different ways of providing a service. The technique is applied to consider women's preferences for two surgical procedures in the treatment of menorrhagia: hysterectomy and conservative surgery. The results suggest conservative surgery is preferred to hysterectomy, as indicated by higher utility scores for the former and a marginal WTP of 7593 to have conservative surgery rather than hysterectomy. The internal validity of CA was also shown. It is concluded that CA is a potentially useful instrument for policy makers. However, numerous methodological issues need addressing before the technique becomes an established instrument within economic evaluations.

Suggested Citation

  • Fernando San Miguel & Mandy Ryan & Emma McIntosh, 2000. "Applying conjoint analysis in economic evaluations: an application to menorrhagia," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 32(7), pages 823-833.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:applec:v:32:y:2000:i:7:p:823-833
    DOI: 10.1080/000368400322165
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/000368400322165
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/000368400322165?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

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

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Paul Kind, 1988. "The design and construction of quality of life measures," Working Papers 043chedp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Martinez, Samuel Cardona & Patterson, Paul M., 2004. "Evaluating The Potential For Local Food Products In Hispanic Markets," 2004 Annual meeting, August 1-4, Denver, CO 20372, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    2. 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.
    3. Patrizia Riganti & Anna Alberini & Alberto Longo, 2005. "Public Preferences for Land usesÂ’ changes - valuing urban regeneration projects at the Venice Arsenale," ERSA conference papers ersa05p756, European Regional Science Association.
    4. Daniele Fabbri & Chiara Monfardini, 2008. "Style of practice and assortative mating: a recursive probit analysis of Caesarean section scheduling in Italy," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 40(11), pages 1411-1423.
    5. Harrison, R. Wes & Gillespie, Jeffrey M. & Fields, Deacue, 2005. "Analysis of Cardinal and Ordinal Assumptions in Conjoint Analysis," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 34(2), pages 1-15, October.
    6. Kim, Min Sung & Kim, Eun & Hwang, ShinYoung & Kim, Junghwan & Kim, Seongcheol, 2017. "Willingness to pay for over-the-top services in China and Korea," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 197-207.
    7. Poulos, Christine & Yang, Jui-Chen & Levin, Carol & Van Minh, Hoang & Giang, Kim Bao & Nguyen, Diep, 2011. "Mothers' preferences and willingness to pay for HPV vaccines in Vinh Long Province, Vietnam," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 73(2), pages 226-234, July.
    8. Mandy Ryan & Angela Bate, 2001. "Testing the assumptions of rationality, continuity and symmetry when applying discrete choice experiments in health care," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 8(1), pages 59-63.
    9. Lim, Jennifer N.W. & Edlin, Richard, 2009. "Preferences of older patients and choice of treatment location in the UK: A binary choice experiment," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 91(3), pages 252-257, August.
    10. Harry Telser & Karolin Becker & Peter Zweifel, 2008. "Validity and Reliability of Willingness-to-Pay Estimates," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 1(4), pages 283-298, October.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. Harry Telser & Peter Zweifel, 2006. "A New Role For Consumers’ Preferences In The Provision Of Healthcare," Economic Affairs, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(3), pages 4-9, September.
    14. Takanori Ida & Shin Kinoshita & Masayuki Sato, 2008. "Conjoint analysis of demand for IP telephony: the case of Japan," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 40(10), pages 1279-1287.
    15. Emily Lancsar & Elizabeth Savage, 2004. "Deriving welfare measures from discrete choice experiments: inconsistency between current methods and random utility and welfare theory," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(9), pages 901-907, September.
    16. Patterson, Paul M. & Martinez, Samuel Cardona, 2004. "State and Origin Branding in Hispanic Food Markets," Journal of Food Distribution Research, Food Distribution Research Society, vol. 35(3), pages 1-12, November.
    17. Lee, Jongsu & Cho, Youngsang, 2009. "Demand forecasting of diesel passenger car considering consumer preference and government regulation in South Korea," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 43(4), pages 420-429, May.
    18. Scott, Anthony, 2002. "Identifying and analysing dominant preferences in discrete choice experiments: An application in health care," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 23(3), pages 383-398, June.
    19. Giebel, Olaf & Breitschopf, Barbara, 2011. "The impact of policy elements on the financing costs of RE investment: The case of wind power in Germany," Working Papers "Sustainability and Innovation" S11/2011, Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research (ISI).
    20. Yeonbae Kim & Jeong-Dong Lee & Daeyoung Koh, 2005. "Effects of consumer preferences on the convergence of mobile telecommunications devices," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 37(7), pages 817-826.
    21. Yusuke Sakata & Junyi Shen & Yoshizo Hashimoto, 2006. "The Influence of Environmental Deterioration and Network Improvement on Transport Modal Choice," Discussion Papers in Economics and Business 06-04, Osaka University, Graduate School of Economics.
    22. Kushagra Kulshreshtha & Vikas Tripathi & Naval Bajpai, 2018. "1971–2017: Evolution, exploration and test of time of conjoint analysis," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 52(6), pages 2893-2919, November.
    23. J. D. Snowball & K. G. Willis, 2011. "Interview versus self-completion questionnaires in discrete choice experiments," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 18(16), pages 1521-1525.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Paul Kind & Claire Gudex, 1991. "The HMQ: measuring health status in the community," Working Papers 093chedp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
    2. Joe Durkan, 1994. "Economic appraisal in health : some conceptual and methodological issues," Open Access publications 10197/1092, School of Economics, University College Dublin.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:taf:applec:v:32:y:2000:i:7:p:823-833. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/RAEC20 .

    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.