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

Using stated preference discrete choice modelling to evaluate the introduction of varicella vaccination

Contents:

Author Info

  • Jane Hall

    (Centre for Health Economics Research and Evaluation (CHERE), Central Sydney Area Health Service and University of Techology, Sydney, Australia)

  • Patricia Kenny

    (Centre for Health Economics Research and Evaluation (CHERE), Central Sydney Area Health Service and University of Techology, Sydney, Australia)

  • Madeleine King

    (Centre for Health Economics Research and Evaluation (CHERE), Central Sydney Area Health Service and University of Techology, Sydney, Australia)

  • Jordan Louviere

    (Centre for Health Economics Research and Evaluation (CHERE), Central Sydney Area Health Service and University of Techology, Sydney, Australia)

  • Rosalie Viney

    (Centre for Health Economics Research and Evaluation (CHERE), Central Sydney Area Health Service and University of Techology, Sydney, Australia)

  • Angela Yeoh

    (Centre for Health Economics Research and Evaluation (CHERE), Central Sydney Area Health Service and University of Techology, Sydney, Australia)

Abstract

Applications of stated preference discrete choice modelling (SPDCM) in health economics have been used to estimate consumer willingness to pay and to broaden the range of consequences considered in economic evaluation. This paper demonstrates how SPDCM can be used to predict participation rates, using the case of varicella (chickenpox) vaccination. Varicella vaccination may be cost effective compared to other public health programs, but this conclusion is sensitive to the proportion of the target population immunised. A choice experiment was conducted on a sample of Australian parents to predict uptake across a range of hypothetical programs. Immunisation rates would be increased by providing immunisation at no cost, by requiring it for school entry, by increasing immunisation rates in the community and decreasing the incidence of mild and severe side effects. There were two significant interactions; price modified the effect of both support from authorities and severe side effects. Country of birth was the only significant demographic characteristic. Depending on aspects of the immunisation program, the immunisation rates of children with Australian-born parents varied from 9% to 99% while for the children with parents born outside Australia they varied from 40% to 99%. This demonstrates how SPDCM can be used to understand the levels of attributes that will induce a change in the decision to immunise, the modification of the effect of one attribute by another, and subgroups in the population. Such insights can contribute to the optimal design and targeting of health programs. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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://hdl.handle.net/10.1002/hec.694
File Function: Link to full text; subscription required
Download Restriction: no

Bibliographic Info

Article provided by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. in its journal Health Economics.

Volume (Year): 11 (2002)
Issue (Month): 5 ()
Pages: 457-465

as in new window
Handle: RePEc:wly:hlthec:v:11:y:2002:i:5:p:457-465

Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jhome/5749

Related research

Keywords:

References

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
as in new window
  1. Daniel McFadden & Kenneth Train, 2000. "Mixed MNL models for discrete response," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(5), pages 447-470.
  2. Scuffham, P. & Devlin, N. & Eberhart-Phillips, J. & Wilson-Salt, R., 1999. "The cost-effectiveness of introducing a varicella vaccine to the New Zealand immunisation schedule," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 49(6), pages 763-779, September.
  3. Streefland, Pieter & Chowdhury, A. M. R. & Ramos-Jimenez, Pilar, 1999. "Patterns of vaccination acceptance," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 49(12), pages 1705-1716, December.
  4. Stirling Bryan & Martin Buxton & Robert Sheldon & Alison Grant, 1998. "Magnetic resonance imaging for the investigation of knee injuries: an investigation of preferences," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 7(7), pages 595-603.
  5. Patricia Kenny & Jane Hall & Rosalie Viney & Angela Yeoh & Marion Haas, 2002. "Using qualitative methods to validate a stated preference survey for evaluating health services, CHERE Discussion Paper No 47," Discussion Papers 47, CHERE, University of Technology, Sydney.
  6. Mandy Ryan & Jenny Hughes, 1997. "Using Conjoint Analysis to Assess Women's Preferences for Miscarriage Management," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 6(3), pages 261-273.
  7. Stirling Bryan & Lisa Gold & Rob Sheldon & Martin Buxton, 2000. "Preference measurement using conjoint methods: an empirical investigation of reliability," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 9(5), pages 385-395.
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 in new window

Cited by:
  1. Anna Merino, 2003. "Eliciting consumers preferences using stated preference discrete choice models: Contingent ranking versus choice experiment," Working Papers, Research Center on Health and Economics 705, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
  2. Harry Telser & Peter Zweifel, 2007. "Validity of discrete-choice experiments evidence for health risk reduction," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 39(1), pages 69-78.
  3. 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.
  4. Emily Lancsar & Elizabeth Savage, 2004. "Deriving welfare measures from discrete choice experiments: a response to Ryan and Santos Silva," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(9), pages 919-924.
  5. Kjaer, Trine & Gyrd-Hansen, Dorte, 2008. "Preference heterogeneity and choice of cardiac rehabilitation program: Results from a discrete choice experiment," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 85(1), pages 124-132, January.
  6. Joachim Marti, 2012. "Assessing preferences for improved smoking cessation medications: a discrete choice experiment," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer, vol. 13(5), pages 533-548, October.
  7. 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.
  8. Meliyanni Johar & Denzil Fiebig & Marion Haas & Rosalie Viney, 2009. "Evaluating changes in women's attitudes towards cervical screening following a screening promotion campaign and a free vaccination program. CHERE Working Paper 2009/3," Working Papers 2009/3, CHERE, University of Technology, Sydney.
  9. Emily Lancsar & Jordan Louviere, 2008. "Conducting Discrete Choice Experiments to Inform Healthcare Decision Making," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 26(8), pages 661-677, August.
  10. Bonny Parkinson & Stephen Goodall & Richard Norman, 2013. "Measuring the Loss of Consumer Choice in Mandatory Health Programmes Using Discrete Choice Experiments," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 11(2), pages 139-150, April.
  11. Emily Lancsar & Cam Donaldson, 2005. "Discrete choice experiments in health economics," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer, vol. 6(4), pages 314-316, December.
  12. Mark Harrison & Dan Rigby & Caroline Vass & Terry Flynn & Jordan Louviere & Katherine Payne, 2014. "Risk as an Attribute in Discrete Choice Experiments: A Systematic Review of the Literature," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer, vol. 7(2), pages 151-170, June.
  13. Anna Merino, 2003. "Eliciting consumers preferences using stated preference discrete choice models: Contingent ranking versus choice experiment," Economics Working Papers 705, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
  14. LUYTEN, Jeroen & KESSELS, Roselinde & GOOS, Peter & BEUTELS, Philippe, 2013. "Public preferences for prioritizing preventive and curative health care interventions: A discrete choice experiment," Working Papers 2013032, University of Antwerp, Faculty of Applied Economics.
  15. Patricia Kenny & Jane Hall & Rosalie Viney & Angela Yeoh & Marion Haas, 2002. "Using qualitative methods to validate a stated preference survey for evaluating health services, CHERE Discussion Paper No 47," Discussion Papers 47, CHERE, University of Technology, Sydney.
  16. Rosalie Viney & Elizabeth Savage, 2006. "Health care policy evaluation: empirical analysis of the restrictions implied by Quality Adjusted Life Years, CHERE Working Paper 2006/10," Working Papers 2006/10, CHERE, University of Technology, Sydney.
  17. Esther Bekker-Grob & John Rose & Michiel Bliemer, 2013. "A Closer Look at Decision and Analyst Error by Including Nonlinearities in Discrete Choice Models: Implications on Willingness-to-Pay Estimates Derived from Discrete Choice Data in Healthcare," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 31(12), pages 1169-1183, December.
  18. Tami L. Mark & Joffre Swait, 2004. "Using stated preference and revealed preference modeling to evaluate prescribing decisions," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(6), pages 563-573.

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:wly:hlthec:v:11:y:2002:i:5:p:457-465. 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: (Wiley-Blackwell Digital Licensing) or (Christopher F. Baum).

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.