IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v48y1999i4p535-546.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Ryan, Mandy

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Ryan, Mandy, 1999. "Using conjoint analysis to take account of patient preferences and go beyond health outcomes: an application to in vitro fertilisation," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 48(4), pages 535-546, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:48:y:1999:i:4:p:535-546
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277-9536(98)00374-8
    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. Andriy Danyliv & Milena Pavlova & Irena Gryga & Wim Groot, 2015. "Preferences for physician services in Ukraine: a discrete choice experiment," International Journal of Health Planning and Management, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(4), pages 346-365, October.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. Dorte Gyrd-Hansen, 2003. "Willingness to pay for a QALY," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(12), pages 1049-1060.
    7. Kathryn A. Martinez & Angela Fagerlin & Holly O. Witteman & Christine Holmberg & Sarah T. Hawley, 2016. "What Matters to Women When Making Decisions About Breast Cancer Chemoprevention?," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, vol. 9(2), pages 149-159, April.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. 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.
    14. Richard Abreu Lourenco & Marion Haas & Jane Hall & Rosalie Viney, 2017. "Valuing Meta-Health Effects for Use in Economic Evaluations to Inform Reimbursement Decisions: A Review of the Evidence," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 35(3), pages 347-362, March.
    15. Michael Clark & Domino Determann & Stavros Petrou & Domenico Moro & Esther Bekker-Grob, 2014. "Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: A Review of the Literature," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 32(9), pages 883-902, September.
    16. 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.
    17. 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.
    18. 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.
    19. 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.
    20. Severin, Franziska & Hess, Wolfgang & Schmidtke, Jörg & Mühlbacher, Axel & Rogowski, Wolf, 2015. "Value judgments for priority setting criteria in genetic testing: A discrete choice experiment," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(2), pages 164-173.

    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: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: (Dana Niculescu). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.