IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

What's Good and Bad About Contraceptive Products?: A Best-Worst Attribute Experiment Comparing the Values of Women Consumers and GPs

  • Stephanie A. Knox

    (Centre for Health Economics Research and Evaluation, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia)

  • Rosalie C. Viney

    (Centre for Health Economics Research and Evaluation, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia)

  • Deborah J. Street

    (School of Mathematical Sciences, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia)

  • Marion R. Haas

    (Centre for Health Economics Research and Evaluation, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia)

  • Denzil G. Fiebig

    (Australian School of Business, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia)

  • Edith Weisberg

    (Sydney Centre for Reproductive Health Research, Family Planning NSW, Sydney, NSW, Australia)

  • Deborah Bateson

    (Sydney Centre for Reproductive Health Research, Family Planning NSW, Sydney, NSW, Australia)

Background:Background: In the past decade, the range of contraceptives available has increased dramatically. There are limited data on the factors that determine women's choices on contraceptive alternatives or what factors providers consider most important when recommending contraceptive products to women. Abstract: Objectives:Objectives: Our objectives were to compare women's (consumers') preferences and GPs' (providers') views in relation to existing and new contraceptive methods, and particularly to examine what factors increase the acceptability of different contraceptive products. Abstract: Methods:Methods: A best-worst attribute stated-choice experiment was completed online. Participants (Australian women of reproductive age and Australian GPs) completed questions on 16 contraceptive profiles. 200 women of reproductive age were recruited through a commercial panel. GPs from all states of Australia were randomly sampled and approached by phone; 162 GPs agreed to participate. Participants chose the best and worst attribute levels of hypothetical but realistic prescribed contraceptive products. Best and worst choices were modelled using multinomial logit and product features were ranked from best to worst according to the size of model coefficients. Abstract: Results:Results: The most attractive feature of the contraceptive products for both GPs and women consumers were an administration frequency of longer than 1 year and light or no bleeding. Women indicated that the hormonal vaginal ring was the least attractive mode of administration. Abstract: Conclusions:Conclusions: Women and GPs agree that longer-acting methods with less bleeding are important features in preferred methods of contraception; however, women are also attracted to products involving less invasive modes of administration. While the vaginal ring may fill the niche in Australia for a relatively non-invasive, moderately long-acting and effective contraceptive, the results of this study indicate that GPs will need to promote the benefits of the vaginal ring to overcome negative perceptions about this method among women who may benefit from using it.

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:
Download Restriction: Pay per view

File URL:
Download Restriction: Pay per view

As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

Article provided by Springer Healthcare | Adis in its journal PharmacoEconomics.

Volume (Year): 30 (2012)
Issue (Month): 12 ()
Pages: 1187-1202

in new window

Handle: RePEc:wkh:phecon:v:30:y:2012:i:12:p:1187-1202
Contact details of provider: Web page:

No references listed on IDEAS
You can help add them by filling out this form.

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wkh:phecon:v:30:y:2012:i:12:p:1187-1202. 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: (Dave Dustin)

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.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.