Exploring the social value of health-care interventions: a stated preference discrete choice experiment
Much of the literature on distributive preferences covers specific considerations in isolation, and recent reviews have suggested that research is required to inform on the relative importance of various key considerations. Responding to this research recommendation, we explore the distributive preferences of the general public using a set of generic social value judgments. We report on a discrete choice experiment (DCE) survey, using face-to-face interviews, in a sample of the general population (n=259). The context for the survey was resource allocation decisions in the UK National Health Service, using the process of health technology appraisal as an example. The attributes used covered health improvement, value for money, severity of health, and availability of other treatments, and it is the first such survey to use cost-effectiveness in scenarios described to the general public. Results support the feasibility and acceptability of the DCE approach for the elicitation of public preferences. Choice data are used to consider the relative importance of changes across attribute levels, and to model utility scores and relative probabilities for the full set of combinations of attributes and levels in the experimental design used (n=64). Results allow the relative social value of health technology scenarios to be explored. Findings add to a sparse literature on 'social' preferences, and show that DCE data can be used to consider the strength of preference over alternative scenarios in a priority-setting context. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Volume (Year): 18 (2009)
Issue (Month): 8 ()
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jhome/5749|
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Schwappach, David L.B. & Strasmann, Thomas J., 2006. ""Quick and dirty numbers"?: The reliability of a stated-preference technique for the measurement of preferences for resource allocation," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(3), pages 432-448, May.
- Cookson, Richard & Dolan, Paul, 1999. "Public views on health care rationing: a group discussion study," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(1-2), pages 63-74, September.
- Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74, pages 132-132.
- Paul Dolan & Rebecca Shaw & Aki Tsuchiya & Alan Williams, 2005. "QALY maximisation and people's preferences: a methodological review of the literature," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(2), pages 197-208.
- Charny, M.C. & Lewis, P.A. & Farrow, S.C., 1989. "Choosing who shall not be treated in the NHS," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 28(12), pages 1331-1338, January.
- Nord, Erik, 1993. "The trade-off between severity of illness and treatment effect in cost-value analysis of health care," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 24(3), pages 227-238, August.
- Gyrd-Hansen, Dorte, 2004. "Investigating the social value of health changes," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(6), pages 1101-1116, November.
- 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.
- Edwards, Rhiannon Tudor & Boland, Angela & Wilkinson, Clare & Cohen, David & Williams, John, 2003. "Clinical and lay preferences for the explicit prioritisation of elective waiting lists: survey evidence from Wales," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 63(3), pages 229-237, March.
- Julie Ratcliffe, 2000. "Public preferences for the allocation of donor liver grafts for transplantation," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 9(2), pages 137-148.
- Ramón Álvarez-Esteban, 2008. "Using discrete choice experiments to value health and health care," International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing, Springer;International Association of Public and Non-Profit Marketing, vol. 5(2), pages 201-203, December.
- W. Michael Hanemann, 1984. "Welfare Evaluations in Contingent Valuation Experiments with Discrete Responses," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 66(3), pages 332-341.
- Newdick, Christopher, 2005. "Who Should We Treat?: Rights, Rationing, and Resources in the NHS," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, edition 2, number 9780199264186, December.
- Farrar, Shelley & Ryan, Mandy & Ross, Donald & Ludbrook, Anne, 2000. "Using discrete choice modelling in priority setting: an application to clinical service developments," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 50(1), pages 63-75, January.
- Louviere,Jordan J. & Hensher,David A. & ,, 2000. "Stated Choice Methods," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521788304, May.
- Emily Lancsar & Jordan Louviere, 2006. "Deleting 'irrational' responses from discrete choice experiments: a case of investigating or imposing preferences?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(8), pages 797-811.
- Nancy Devlin & David Parkin, 2004. "Does NICE have a cost-effectiveness threshold and what other factors influence its decisions? A binary choice analysis," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(5), pages 437-452.
- Ubel, Peter A., 1999. "How stable are people's preferences for giving priority to severely ill patients?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 49(7), pages 895-903, October.
- Nord, Erik & Richardson, Jeff & Street, Andrew & Kuhse, Helga & Singer, Peter, 1995. "Maximizing health benefits vs egalitarianism: An Australian survey of health issues," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 41(10), pages 1429-1437, November.
- Andrew J Lloyd, 2003. "Threats to the estimation of benefit: are preference elicitation methods accurate?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(5), pages 393-402.
- Stirling Bryan & Tracy Roberts & Chris Heginbotham & Alison McCallum, 2002. "QALY-maximisation and public preferences: results from a general population survey," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(8), pages 679-693.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:hlthec:v:18:y:2009:i:8:p:951-976. 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)
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.