IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/hlthec/v20y2011is1p35-52.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Preferences for new and existing contraceptive products

Author

Listed:
  • Denzil G. Fiebig
  • Stephanie Knox
  • Rosalie Viney
  • Marion Haas
  • Deborah J. Street

Abstract

New contraceptive methods provide greater choice in terms of effectiveness, management of side‐effects, convenience and frequency of administration and flexibility, but make the decisions about contraception more complex. There are limited data on the factors that determine women's choices among these alternatives, to inform providers about the factors which are most important to women, or to predict uptake of new products. This paper reports on a choice experiment designed to elicit women's preferences in relation to prescribed contraception and to forecast the impact of the introduction of two new products into the Australian market. A generalised multinomial logit model is estimated and used in the simulation exercise. The model forecasts that the hormonal patch would be well received among women, achieving a greater market share than current non‐pill products, but the vaginal ring would have limited appeal. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Suggested Citation

  • Denzil G. Fiebig & Stephanie Knox & Rosalie Viney & Marion Haas & Deborah J. Street, 2011. "Preferences for new and existing contraceptive products," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(S1), pages 35-52, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:hlthec:v:20:y:2011:i:s1:p:35-52
    DOI: 10.1002/hec.1686
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.1686
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/hec.1686?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. repec:cdl:econwp:qt3tb6j874 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Adeline Delavande, 2008. "Pill, Patch, Or Shot? Subjective Expectations And Birth Control Choice," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 49(3), pages 999-1042, August.
    3. Hole, Arne Risa, 2008. "Modelling heterogeneity in patients' preferences for the attributes of a general practitioner appointment," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(4), pages 1078-1094, July.
    4. repec:cdl:uctcwp:qt3tb6j874 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521747387, January.
    6. Denzil G. Fiebig & Michael P. Keane & Jordan Louviere & Nada Wasi, 2010. "The Generalized Multinomial Logit Model: Accounting for Scale and Coefficient Heterogeneity," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(3), pages 393-421, 05-06.
    7. repec:cdl:econwp:qt1j6814b3 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. David Revelt & Kenneth Train, 1998. "Mixed Logit With Repeated Choices: Households' Choices Of Appliance Efficiency Level," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 80(4), pages 647-657, November.
    9. Hall, Jane & Fiebig, Denzil G. & King, Madeleine T. & Hossain, Ishrat & Louviere, Jordan J., 2006. "What influences participation in genetic carrier testing?: Results from a discrete choice experiment," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(3), pages 520-537, May.
    10. repec:cdl:uctcwp:qt1j6814b3 is not listed on IDEAS
    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. Denzil G. Fiebig & Rosalie Viney & Stephanie Knox & Marion Haas & Deborah J. Street & Arne R. Hole & Edith Weisberg & Deborah Bateson, 2017. "Consideration Sets and Their Role in Modelling Doctor Recommendations About Contraceptives," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(1), pages 54-73, January.
    2. Arne Hole & Julie Kolstad, 2012. "Mixed logit estimation of willingness to pay distributions: a comparison of models in preference and WTP space using data from a health-related choice experiment," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 42(2), pages 445-469, April.
    3. Kettlewell, Nathan & Walker, Matthew J. & Yoo, Hong Il, 2024. "Alternative Models of Preference Heterogeneity for Elicited Choice Probabilities," IZA Discussion Papers 16821, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    4. 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.
    5. Sivey, Peter & Scott, Anthony & Witt, Julia & Joyce, Catherine & Humphreys, John, 2012. "Junior doctors’ preferences for specialty choice," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(6), pages 813-823.
    6. Emily Lancsar & Peter Burge, 2014. "Choice modelling research in health economics," Chapters, in: Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly (ed.), Handbook of Choice Modelling, chapter 28, pages 675-687, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    7. Carole Ropars-Collet & Mélody Leplat & Philippe Le Goffe & Marie Lesueur, 2015. "La pêche professionnelle est-elle un facteur d’attractivité récréative sur le littoral ?," Revue économique, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 66(4), pages 729-754.
    8. Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Bartczak, Anna & Giergiczny, Marek & Navrud, Stale & Żylicz, Tomasz, 2014. "Providing preference-based support for forest ecosystem service management," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 1-12.
    9. Pamela Searle & Peter Ayton & Iain Clacher, 2024. "Annuity selection in the presence of insurer default risk and government guarantees," Journal of Risk & Insurance, The American Risk and Insurance Association, vol. 91(1), pages 161-192, March.
    10. Carson, Richard T. & Czajkowski, Mikołaj, 2019. "A new baseline model for estimating willingness to pay from discrete choice models," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 57-61.
    11. Koo, Yoonmo & Kim, Chang Seob & Hong, Junhee & Choi, Ie-Jung & Lee, Jongsu, 2012. "Consumer preferences for automobile energy-efficiency grades," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 446-451.
    12. Fiebig, Denzil G. & Haas, Marion & Hossain, Ishrat & Street, Deborah J. & Viney, Rosalie, 2009. "Decisions about Pap tests: What influences women and providers?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 68(10), pages 1766-1774, May.
    13. Landmann, D. & Feil, J.-H. & Lagerkvist, C.J. & Otter, V., 2018. "Designing capacity development activities of small-scale farmers in developing countries based on discrete choice experiments," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277738, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    14. Gillespie Rob & Kragt Marit E., 2012. "Accounting for Nonmarket Impacts in a Benefit-Cost Analysis of Underground Coal Mining in New South Wales, Australia," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, De Gruyter, vol. 3(2), pages 1-29, May.
    15. Martine AUDIBERT & Yong HE & Jacky MATHONNAT, 2017. "What does demand heterogeneity tell us about health care provider choice in rural China?," Working Papers P193, FERDI.
    16. Chhandita Das & Christopher M. Anderson & Stephen K. Swallow, 2009. "Estimating Distributions of Willingness to Pay for Heterogeneous Populations," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 75(3), pages 593-610, January.
    17. Alves, Maria Odete & Valente, Airton Saboya Jr, 2006. "Comunicação Rural Entre Três Atores Nas Áreas De Concentração De Fruteiras No Nordeste Brasileiro:," 44th Congress, July 23-27, 2006, Fortaleza, Ceará, Brazil 148515, Sociedade Brasileira de Economia, Administracao e Sociologia Rural (SOBER).
    18. Hoyos, David, 2010. "The state of the art of environmental valuation with discrete choice experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(8), pages 1595-1603, June.
    19. Talevi, Marta & Pattanayak, Subhrendu K. & Das, Ipsita & Lewis, Jessica J. & Singha, Ashok K., 2022. "Speaking from experience: Preferences for cooking with biogas in rural India," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    20. Shr, Yau-Huo & Ready, Richard C. & Orland, Brian & Echols, Stuart, "undated". "Do Visual Representations Influence Survey Responses? Evidence from a Choice Experiment on Landscape Attributes of Green Infrastructure," 2017 Annual Meeting, July 30-August 1, Chicago, Illinois 258397, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.

    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:20:y:2011:i:s1:p:35-52. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jhome/5749 .

    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.