IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/hlthec/v11y2002i5p457-465.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Using stated preference discrete choice modelling to evaluate the introduction of varicella vaccination

Author

Listed:
  • Jane Hall

    (Centre for Health Economics Research and Evaluation (CHERE), Central Sydney Area Health Service and University of Techology, Sydney, Australia)

  • Patricia Kenny

    (Centre for Health Economics Research and Evaluation (CHERE), Central Sydney Area Health Service and University of Techology, Sydney, Australia)

  • Madeleine King

    (Centre for Health Economics Research and Evaluation (CHERE), Central Sydney Area Health Service and University of Techology, Sydney, Australia)

  • Jordan Louviere

    (Centre for Health Economics Research and Evaluation (CHERE), Central Sydney Area Health Service and University of Techology, Sydney, Australia)

  • Rosalie Viney

    (Centre for Health Economics Research and Evaluation (CHERE), Central Sydney Area Health Service and University of Techology, Sydney, Australia)

  • Angela Yeoh

    (Centre for Health Economics Research and Evaluation (CHERE), Central Sydney Area Health Service and University of Techology, Sydney, Australia)

Abstract

Applications of stated preference discrete choice modelling (SPDCM) in health economics have been used to estimate consumer willingness to pay and to broaden the range of consequences considered in economic evaluation. This paper demonstrates how SPDCM can be used to predict participation rates, using the case of varicella (chickenpox) vaccination. Varicella vaccination may be cost effective compared to other public health programs, but this conclusion is sensitive to the proportion of the target population immunised. A choice experiment was conducted on a sample of Australian parents to predict uptake across a range of hypothetical programs. Immunisation rates would be increased by providing immunisation at no cost, by requiring it for school entry, by increasing immunisation rates in the community and decreasing the incidence of mild and severe side effects. There were two significant interactions; price modified the effect of both support from authorities and severe side effects. Country of birth was the only significant demographic characteristic. Depending on aspects of the immunisation program, the immunisation rates of children with Australian-born parents varied from 9% to 99% while for the children with parents born outside Australia they varied from 40% to 99%. This demonstrates how SPDCM can be used to understand the levels of attributes that will induce a change in the decision to immunise, the modification of the effect of one attribute by another, and subgroups in the population. Such insights can contribute to the optimal design and targeting of health programs. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:hlthec:v:11:y:2002:i:5:p:457-465
    DOI: 10.1002/hec.694
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1002/hec.694
    File Function: Link to full text; subscription required
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Daniel McFadden & Kenneth Train, 2000. "Mixed MNL models for discrete response," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(5), pages 447-470.
    2. 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.
    3. Streefland, Pieter & Chowdhury, A. M. R. & Ramos-Jimenez, Pilar, 1999. "Patterns of vaccination acceptance," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 49(12), pages 1705-1716, December.
    4. 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.
    5. Scuffham, P. & Devlin, N. & Eberhart-Phillips, J. & Wilson-Salt, R., 1999. "The cost-effectiveness of introducing a varicella vaccine to the New Zealand immunisation schedule," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 49(6), pages 763-779, September.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    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. Bonny Parkinson & Stephen Goodall & Richard Norman, 2013. "Measuring the Loss of Consumer Choice in Mandatory Health Programmes Using Discrete Choice Experiments," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 11(2), pages 139-150, April.
    2. Emily Lancsar & Elizabeth Savage, 2004. "Deriving welfare measures from discrete choice experiments: a response to Ryan and Santos Silva," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(9), pages 919-924.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. Emily Lancsar & Joffre Swait, 2014. "Reconceptualising the External Validity of Discrete Choice Experiments," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 32(10), pages 951-965, October.
    6. Meliyanni Johar & Denzil Fiebig & Marion Haas & Rosalie Viney, 2009. "Evaluating changes in women's attitudes towards cervical screening following a screening promotion campaign and a free vaccination program. CHERE Working Paper 2009/3," Working Papers 2009/3, CHERE, University of Technology, Sydney.
    7. Emily Lancsar & Cam Donaldson, 2005. "Discrete choice experiments in health economics," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 6(4), pages 314-316, December.
    8. Mark Harrison & Dan Rigby & Caroline Vass & Terry Flynn & Jordan Louviere & Katherine Payne, 2014. "Risk as an Attribute in Discrete Choice Experiments: A Systematic Review of the Literature," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, vol. 7(2), pages 151-170, June.
    9. Rosalie Viney & Elizabeth Savage, 2006. "Health care policy evaluation: empirical analysis of the restrictions implied by Quality Adjusted Life Years, CHERE Working Paper 2006/10," Working Papers 2006/10, CHERE, University of Technology, Sydney.
    10. Waleska Sigüernza & Petr Mariel, 2013. "Valoración económica de los servicios sanitarios en la Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco," Hacienda Pública Española, IEF, vol. 207(4), pages 71-99, December.
    11. LUYTEN, Jeroen & KESSELS, Roselinde & GOOS, Peter & BEUTELS, Philippe, 2013. "Public preferences for prioritizing preventive and curative health care interventions: A discrete choice experiment," Working Papers 2013032, University of Antwerp, Faculty of Applied Economics.
    12. Esther Bekker-Grob & John Rose & Michiel Bliemer, 2013. "A Closer Look at Decision and Analyst Error by Including Nonlinearities in Discrete Choice Models: Implications on Willingness-to-Pay Estimates Derived from Discrete Choice Data in Healthcare," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 31(12), pages 1169-1183, December.
    13. repec:spr:patien:v:10:y:2017:i:6:d:10.1007_s40271-017-0244-x is not listed on IDEAS
    14. 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.
    15. Grewal, Ini & Lewis, Jane & Flynn, Terry & Brown, Jackie & Bond, John & Coast, Joanna, 2006. "Developing attributes for a generic quality of life measure for older people: Preferences or capabilities?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 62(8), pages 1891-1901, April.
    16. 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.
    17. Harry Telser & Peter Zweifel, 2007. "Validity of discrete-choice experiments evidence for health risk reduction," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 39(1), pages 69-78.
    18. Emily Lancsar & Jordan Louviere, 2008. "Conducting Discrete Choice Experiments to Inform Healthcare Decision Making," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 26(8), pages 661-677, August.
    19. 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.
    20. Kjaer, Trine & Gyrd-Hansen, Dorte, 2008. "Preference heterogeneity and choice of cardiac rehabilitation program: Results from a discrete choice experiment," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 85(1), pages 124-132, January.
    21. 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.
    22. 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.
    23. Emily Lancsar & Peter Burge, 2014. "Choice modelling research in health economics," Chapters,in: Handbook of Choice Modelling, chapter 28, pages 675-687 Edward Elgar Publishing.
    24. 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.
    25. Jesús Clemente López & Pedro García Castrillo & María A. González Alvarez & Marcos Sanso Frago, 2014. "Una evaluación de la efectividad de la formación ocupacional para desempleados antes y después de la crisis económica: el caso de Aragón," Hacienda Pública Española, IEF, vol. 208(1), pages 77-106, March.

    More about this item

    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:wly:hlthec:v:11:y:2002:i:5:p:457-465. 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: (Wiley-Blackwell Digital Licensing) or (Christopher F. Baum). General contact details of provider: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jhome/5749 .

    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 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.

    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.