IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v54y2002i10p1601-1609.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The contingent ranking method--a feasible and valid method when eliciting preferences for health care?

Author

Listed:
  • Slothuus, Ulla
  • Larsen, Mette L.
  • Junker, Peter

Abstract

The Contingent Ranking Method--a feasible and valid method when eliciting preferences for health care? The objective of the study was to determine the feasibility and validity of the contingent ranking method, when eliciting preferences and measuring willingness to pay for health care. A measurement experiment based on ranking data is reported. Marginal willingness to pay for alleviation of rheumatoid arthritis symptoms that may be the outcome of a treatment with a novel anti-rheumatic agent, cA2 (now called TNF-[alpha] blockade) was calculated. The estimated marginal willingness to pay value was 650 DKK ($93). With regard to the health status variables and income variable the signs of the coefficients were, as expected, positive. The contingent ranking method is a feasible and valid method for eliciting preferences and determining willingness to pay estimates.

Suggested Citation

  • Slothuus, Ulla & Larsen, Mette L. & Junker, Peter, 2002. "The contingent ranking method--a feasible and valid method when eliciting preferences for health care?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 54(10), pages 1601-1609, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:54:y:2002:i:10:p:1601-1609
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277-9536(01)00139-3
    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. Kanya, Lucy & Sanghera, Sabina & Lewin, Alex & Fox-Rushby, Julia, 2019. "The criterion validity of willingness to pay methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the evidence," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 232(C), pages 238-261.
    2. Kanya, Lucy & Saghera, Sabina & Lewin, Alex & Fox-Rushby, Julia, 2019. "The criterion validity of willingness to pay methods: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the evidence," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 100741, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    3. van den Berg, Bernard & Al, Maiwenn & Brouwer, Werner & van Exel, Job & Koopmanschap, Marc, 2005. "Economic valuation of informal care: The conjoint measurement method applied to informal caregiving," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 61(6), pages 1342-1355, September.
    4. Victoor, Aafke & Hansen, Johan & van den Akker-van Marle, M. Elske & van den Berg, Bernard & van den Hout, Wilbert B. & de Jong, Judith D., 2014. "Choosing your health insurance package: A method for measuring the public's preferences for changes in the national health insurance plan," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 117(2), pages 257-265.
    5. 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.
    6. Ahn, Jiwoon & Jeong, Gicheol & Kim, Yeonbae, 2008. "A forecast of household ownership and use of alternative fuel vehicles: A multiple discrete-continuous choice approach," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(5), pages 2091-2104, September.

    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:54:y:2002:i:10:p:1601-1609. 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.