IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/her/chedps/47.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Using qualitative methods to validate a stated preference survey for evaluating health services, CHERE Discussion Paper No 47

Author

Listed:
  • Patricia Kenny

    (CHERE, University of Technology, Sydney)

  • Jane Hall

    (CHERE, University of Technology, Sydney)

  • Rosalie Viney

    (CHERE, University of Technology, Sydney)

  • Angela Yeoh
  • Marion Haas

    (CHERE, University of Technology, Sydney)

Abstract

This study used a qualitative approach to assess parents? opinions of a self-completed stated preference discrete choice modelling (SPDCM) questionnaire for assessing the uptake of a new childhood vaccination against chickenpox. The aim was to assess the way parents understood and used the technical information provided, the factors they deemed important to decisions about childhood immunisation and the extent to which these were consistent with the models produced by analysis of the questionnaire data. Following completion of the SPDCM questionnaire, 34 respondents participated in a semi-structured interview by telephone. Interview transcripts were analysed using content analysis. Comparisons were then made with the SPDCM questionnaire results. The technical information used to describe the program attributes appeared to be used appropriately by respondents, although their explanations indicated that their understanding did not always come from the questionnaire information. Only one respondent appeared to misunderstand the stated preference task, and a small number thought that the complexity and length should be reduced. The group results for the questionnaire data were supported by the qualitative study, with the notable features of the model being reflected in the views commonly expressed about the immunisation decision. Generally, the study provides support for the potential usefulness of the SPDCM methodology for predicting the uptake of a new vaccination.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:her:chedps:47
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.chere.uts.edu.au/pdf/dp47.pdf
    File Function: First version, 2002
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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, May.
    2. Louviere,Jordan J. & Hensher,David A. & Swait,Joffre D. With contributions by-Name:Adamowicz,Wiktor, 2000. "Stated Choice Methods," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521788304.
    3. 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, November.
    4. Jane Hall & Patricia Kenny & Madeleine King & Jordan Louviere & Rosalie Viney & Angela Yeoh, 2002. "Using stated preference discrete choice modelling to evaluate the introduction of varicella vaccination," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(5), pages 457-465, July.
    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. Jane Hall & Patricia Kenny & Madeleine King & Jordan Louviere & Rosalie Viney & Angela Yeoh, 2002. "Using stated preference discrete choice modelling to evaluate the introduction of varicella vaccination," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(5), pages 457-465, July.

    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. Joachim Marti, 2012. "Assessing preferences for improved smoking cessation medications: a discrete choice experiment," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 13(5), pages 533-548, October.
    2. Joanna Coast & Hareth Al‐Janabi & Eileen J. Sutton & Susan A. Horrocks & A. Jane Vosper & Dawn R. Swancutt & Terry N. Flynn, 2012. "Using qualitative methods for attribute development for discrete choice experiments: issues and recommendations," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(6), pages 730-741, June.
    3. Andrew J Lloyd, 2003. "Threats to the estimation of benefit: are preference elicitation methods accurate?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(5), pages 393-402, May.
    4. 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.
    5. Kara Hanson & Barbara McPake & Pamela Nakamba & Luke Archard, 2005. "Preferences for hospital quality in Zambia: results from a discrete choice experiment," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(7), pages 687-701, July.
    6. Emily Lancsar & Jordan Louviere, 2006. "Deleting ‘irrational’ responses from discrete choice experiments: a case of investigating or imposing preferences?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(8), pages 797-811, August.
    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. 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, June.
    9. Neuman, Tzahi & Neuman, Einat & Neuman, Shoshana, 2010. "Explorations of the effect of experience on preferences for a health-care service," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 407-419, June.
    10. Ateesha Mohamed & A. Hauber & Maureen Neary, 2011. "Patient Benefit-Risk Preferences for Targeted Agents in the Treatment of Renal Cell Carcinoma," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 29(11), pages 977-988, November.
    11. Peter Zweifel & Harry Telser & Stephan Vaterlaus, 2006. "Consumer Resistance Against Regulation: The Case of Health Care," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 29(3), pages 319-332, May.
    12. Lancsar, Emily & Louviere, Jordan & Flynn, Terry, 2007. "Several methods to investigate relative attribute impact in stated preference experiments," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 64(8), pages 1738-1753, April.
    13. del Saz Salazar, Salvador & Hernandez Sancho, Francesc & Sala Garrido, Ramon, 2009. "Estimación del valor económico de la calidad del agua de un río mediante una doble aproximación: una aplicación de los principios económicos de la Directiva Marco del Agua," Economia Agraria y Recursos Naturales, Spanish Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 9(01), pages 1-27.
    14. F Alpizar & F Carlsson & P Martinsson, 2003. "Using Choice Experiments for Non-Market Valuation," Economic Issues Journal Articles, Economic Issues, vol. 8(1), pages 83-110, March.
    15. Emma McIntosh, 2006. "Using Discrete Choice Experiments within a Cost-Benefit Analysis Framework," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 24(9), pages 855-868, September.
    16. Mandy Ryan & Mabelle Amaya‐Amaya, 2005. "‘Threats’ to and hopes for estimating benefits," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(6), pages 609-619, June.
    17. Tara Maddala & Kathryn A. Phillips & F. Reed Johnson, 2003. "An experiment on simplifying conjoint analysis designs for measuring preferences," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(12), pages 1035-1047, December.
    18. Milena Pavlova & Wim Groot & Godefridus Merode, 2005. "An Application of Rating Conjoint Analysis to Study the Importance of Quality-, Access- and Price-attributes to Health Care Consumers," Economic Change and Restructuring, Springer, vol. 37(3), pages 267-286, September.
    19. 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.
    20. Diego Ossa & Andrew Briggs & Emma McIntosh & Warren Cowell & Tim Littlewood & Mark Sculpher, 2007. "Recombinant Erythropoietin for Chemotherapy-Related Anaemia," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 25(3), pages 223-237, March.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Discrete choice modelling; questionnaires; methodology;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:her:chedps:47. 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: Liz Chinchen (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/chusyau.html .

    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.