IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/hpe/journl/y2006v179i4p113-134.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Social preferences measures and the quality of the job match for persons with disabilities

Author

Listed:
  • Pilar Abad Romero

    (Universidad de Vigo)

  • Begoña Alvarez García

    (Universidad de Vigo)

  • Eva Rodríguez Míguez

    (Universidad de Vigo)

  • Antonio Rodríguez Sampayo

    (Universidad de Santiago de Compostela)

Abstract

Waiting lists are the main mechanisms for rationing demand in national health systems. The usual way to organize patients in a waiting list is on a simple first come first serve basis. Characteristics like the intensity of symptoms or the patient’s limitations in daily activities are not considered explicitly. In this paper, we apply a point system that incorporates social preferences in the management of waiting lists for surgical intervention on the prostate. The results show that both clinical and social variables are important for prioritizing patients waiting for this intervention. Furthermore, we detect some differences between the preferences of patients and general population.

Suggested Citation

  • Pilar Abad Romero & Begoña Alvarez García & Eva Rodríguez Míguez & Antonio Rodríguez Sampayo, 2006. "Social preferences measures and the quality of the job match for persons with disabilities," Hacienda Pública Española / Review of Public Economics, IEF, vol. 179(4), pages 113-134, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:hpe:journl:y:2006:v:179:i:4:p:113-134
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.ief.es/comun/Descarga.cshtml?ruta=~/docs/destacados/publicaciones/revistas/hpe/179_Art5.pdf
    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. Hadorn, D.C., 2000. "Setting Priorities for Waiting Lists: Defining Our Terms," Centre for Health Services and Policy Research 2000:11, University of British Columbia - Centre for Health Services and Policy Research..
    3. Browning, Colette J. & Thomas, Shane A., 2001. "Community values and preferences in transplantation organ allocation decisions," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 52(6), pages 853-861, March.
    4. 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.
    5. Green, Paul E & Srinivasan, V, 1978. "Conjoint Analysis in Consumer Research: Issues and Outlook," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 5(2), pages 103-123, Se.
    6. Hadorn, D.C., 2000. "Setting Priorities for Waiting Lists: Defining Our Terms," Centre for Health Services and Policy Research 2000:11r, University of British Columbia - Centre for Health Services and Policy Research..
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Rodríguez-Míguez, Eva & Herrero, Carmen & Pinto-Prades, José Luis, 2004. "Using a point system in the management of waiting lists: the case of cataracts," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 59(3), pages 585-594, August.
    2. Meiland, F. J. M. & Danse, J. A. C. & Wendte, J. F. & Gunning-Schepers, L. J. & Klazinga, N. S., 2002. "Urgency coding as a dynamic tool in management of waiting lists for psychogeriatric nursing home care in The Netherlands," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 60(2), pages 171-184, May.
    3. 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.
    4. Dew, Kevin & Cumming, Jacqueline & McLeod, Deborah & Morgan, Sonya & McKinlay, Eileen & Dowell, Anthony & Love, Tom, 2005. "Explicit rationing of elective services: implementing the New Zealand reforms," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(1), pages 1-12, September.
    5. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Hensher, David A., 2021. "The landscape of econometric discrete choice modelling research," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    6. 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, July.
    7. 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.
    8. Gevaert, Koen & Keinemans, Sabrina & Roose, Rudi, 2018. "Deciding on priorities in youth care: A systematic literature review," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 191-199.
    9. Fabián Silva-Aravena & Eduardo Álvarez-Miranda & César A. Astudillo & Luis González-Martínez & José G. Ledezma, 2021. "Patients’ Prioritization on Surgical Waiting Lists: A Decision Support System," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(10), pages 1-27, May.
    10. Wang, Qinan, 2004. "Modeling and analysis of high risk patient queues," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 155(2), pages 502-515, June.
    11. 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.
    12. Gupta, Diwakar & Natarajan, Madhu Kailash & Gafni, Amiram & Wang, Lei & Shilton, Don & Holder, Douglas & Yusuf, Salim, 2007. "Capacity planning for cardiac catheterization: A case study," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 82(1), pages 1-11, June.
    13. Las Hayas, Carlota & González, Nerea & Aguirre, Urko & Blasco, Juan Antonio & Elizalde, Belen & Perea, Emilio & Escobar, Antonio & Navarro, Gemma & Castells, Xabier & Quintana, Jose María, 2010. "Can an appropriateness evaluation tool be used to prioritize patients on a waiting list for cataract extraction?," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 95(2-3), pages 194-203, May.
    14. Fabián Silva-Aravena & Jenny Morales, 2022. "Dynamic Surgical Waiting List Methodology: A Networking Approach," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(13), pages 1-23, July.
    15. Solans-Domènech, Maite & Adam, Paula & Tebé, Cristian & Espallargues, Mireia, 2013. "Developing a universal tool for the prioritization of patients waiting for elective surgery," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 113(1), pages 118-126.
    16. Winfried Steiner & Harald Hruschka, 2002. "A Probabilistic One-Step Approach to the Optimal Product Line Design Problem Using Conjoint and Cost Data," Review of Marketing Science Working Papers 1-4-1003, Berkeley Electronic Press.
    17. Merja Halme & Kari Linden & Kimmo Kääriä, 2009. "Patients’ Preferences for Generic and Branded Over-the-Counter Medicines," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 2(4), pages 243-255, December.
    18. Dufhues, T. & Buchenrieder, G., 2004. "Der Beitrag der Conjoint Analyse zur nachfrageorintierten Entwicklung des ländlichen Finanzsektors in Vietnam," Proceedings “Schriften der Gesellschaft für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften des Landbaues e.V.”, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA), vol. 39.
    19. Martinovici, A., 2019. "Revealing attention - how eye movements predict brand choice and moment of choice," Other publications TiSEM 7dca38a5-9f78-4aee-bd81-c, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    20. James Agarwal & Wayne DeSarbo & Naresh K. Malhotra & Vithala Rao, 2015. "An Interdisciplinary Review of Research in Conjoint Analysis: Recent Developments and Directions for Future Research," Customer Needs and Solutions, Springer;Institute for Sustainable Innovation and Growth (iSIG), vol. 2(1), pages 19-40, March.

    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:hpe:journl:y:2006:v:179:i:4:p:113-134. 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: Miguel Gómez de Antonio (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/iefgves.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.