IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/kob/dpaper/dp2017-23.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Examining Japanese Women’s Preferences for a New Style of Postnatal Care Facility and Its Attributes

Author

Listed:
  • Junyi Shen

    (Research Institute for Economics & Business Administration (RIEB), Kobe University, Japan, and School of Economics, Shanghai University, China)

  • Takako Nakashima

    (Faculty of Economics, University of Marketing and Distribution Sciences, Japan)

  • Izumi Karasawa

    (Department of Midwifery, Gifu University of Medical Science, Japan)

  • Tatsuro Furui

    (Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Graduate School of Medicine, Gifu University, Japan)

  • Kenichiro Morishige

    (Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Graduate School of Medicine, Gifu University, Japan)

  • Tatsuyoshi Saijo

    (Research Institute for Humanity and Nature, Kyoto, Japan, and Research Institute for Future Design, Kochi University of Technology, Japan)

Abstract

Perinatal care in rural Japan is currently facing a crisis because of the lack of medical staff, especially obstetricians. In this study, a new style of postnatal care facility that combines both medical and nonmedical support is considered. Contrary to most postnatal care facilities in Japan, this new postnatal care facility accepts a puerperant from the cooperating maternity facility soon after birth (≤2 days). We conducted a hypothetical-choice experiment to investigate whether this new postnatal care facility could be accepted by women in Gero City, Hida, Gifu Prefecture and how these women evaluate different kinds of postnatal care services. The results show that after a 2-day hospital stay, women from Gero City preferred to move to the new postnatal care facility over the other alternatives (continued hospitalization or discharge home). In addition, the estimated choice probabilities for selecting the postnatal care facility under different scenarios show a high level of acceptance for this new postnatal care facility.

Suggested Citation

  • Junyi Shen & Takako Nakashima & Izumi Karasawa & Tatsuro Furui & Kenichiro Morishige & Tatsuyoshi Saijo, 2017. "Examining Japanese Women’s Preferences for a New Style of Postnatal Care Facility and Its Attributes," Discussion Paper Series DP2017-23, Research Institute for Economics & Business Administration, Kobe University.
    • Handle: RePEc:kob:dpaper:dp2017-23
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.rieb.kobe-u.ac.jp/academic/ra/dp/English/DP2017-23.pdf
    File Function: First version, 2017
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Samuelson, William & Zeckhauser, Richard, 1988. "Status Quo Bias in Decision Making," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 1(1), pages 7-59, March.
    2. Junyi Shen, 2005. "A Review of Stated Choice Method," Discussion Papers in Economics and Business 05-27, Osaka University, Graduate School of Economics.
    3. Louviere,Jordan J. & Hensher,David A. & Swait,Joffre D., 2000. "Stated Choice Methods," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521788304, September.
    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. Daniel McFadden, 2009. "The human side of mechanism design: a tribute to Leo Hurwicz and Jean-Jacque Laffont," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 13(1), pages 77-100, April.
    2. Junui Shen & Kazuhito Ogawa & Hiromasa Takahashi, 2014. "Examining the Tradeoff Between Fixed Pay and Performance-Related Pay: A Choice Experiment Approach," Review of Economic Analysis, Digital Initiatives at the University of Waterloo Library, vol. 6(2), pages 119-131, December.
    3. Karolin Becker & Peter Zweifel, 2008. "Age and Choice in Health Insurance," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 1(1), pages 27-40, January.
    4. Junyi Shen & Tatsuyoshi Saijo, 2007. "Does energy efficiency label alter consumers f purchase decision? A latent class approach on Shanghai data," OSIPP Discussion Paper 07E005, Osaka School of International Public Policy, Osaka University.
    5. Julia Blasch & Robert W. Turner, 2016. "Environmental art, prior knowledge about climate change, and carbon offsets," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 6(4), pages 691-705, December.
    6. Yongyou Nie & Enci Wang & Qinxin Guo & Junyi Shen, 2018. "Examining Shanghai Consumer Preferences for Electric Vehicles and Their Attributes," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-16, June.
    7. Rhona Barr & Susana Mourato, 2012. "Investigating fishers� preferences for the design of marine Payments for Environmental Services schemes," GRI Working Papers 101, Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment.
    8. Bauer, Dana & Liu, Pengfei & Swallow, Stephen K. & Johnston, Robert J., 2013. "Do Exurban Communities Want More Development?," Working Papers 25, University of Connecticut, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Charles J. Zwick Center for Food and Resource Policy.
    9. Helen Scarborough & Jeff Bennett, 2012. "Cost–Benefit Analysis and Distributional Preferences," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 14376.
    10. Yang, Yingkui & Solgaard, Hans Stubbe & Haider, Wolfgang, 2016. "Wind, hydro or mixed renewable energy source: Preference for electricity products when the share of renewable energy increases," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 521-531.
    11. Hoyos Ramos, David, 2010. "Using discrete choice experiments for environmental valuation," BILTOKI 1134-8984, Universidad del País Vasco - Departamento de Economía Aplicada III (Econometría y Estadística).
    12. Tobias Holmsgaard Larsen & Thomas Lundhede & Søren Bøye Olsen, 2020. "Assessing the value of surface water and groundwater quality improvements when time lags and outcome uncertainty exist: Results from a choice experiment survey across four different countries," IFRO Working Paper 2020/12, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics.
    13. Karolin Becker & Peter Zweifel, 2005. "Cost Sharing in Health Insurance: An Instrument for Risk Selection?," SOI - Working Papers 0513, Socioeconomic Institute - University of Zurich.
    14. Murwirapachena, Genius & Dikgang, Johane, 2018. "An empirical examination of reducing status quo bias in heterogeneous populations: evidence from the South African water sector," MPRA Paper 91549, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    15. Ladenburg, Jacob & Olsen, Søren Bøye, 2014. "Augmenting short Cheap Talk scripts with a repeated Opt-Out Reminder in Choice Experiment surveys," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 39-63.
    16. Barr, Rhona F. & Mourato, Susana, 2014. "Investigating fishers' preferences for the design of marine Payments for Environmental Services schemes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 91-103.
    17. Junyi Shen & On Fukui & Hiroyuki Hashimoto & Takako Nakashima & Tadashi Kimura & Kenichiro Morishige & Tatsuyoshi Saijo, 2012. "A cost-benefit analysis on the specialization in departments of obstetrics and gynecology in Japan," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 2(1), pages 1-10, December.
    18. Paha, Johannes & Rompf, Dirk & Warnecke, Christiane, 2013. "Customer choice patterns in passenger rail competition," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 209-227.
    19. Lehmann, Nico & Sloot, Daniel & Ardone, Armin & Fichtner, Wolf, 2021. "The limited potential of regional electricity marketing – Results from two discrete choice experiments in Germany," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 100(C).
    20. Junyi Shen & Yusuke Sakata & Yoshizo Hashimoto, 2006. "A Comparison between Latent Class Model and Mixed Logit Model for Transport Mode Choice: Evidences from Two Datasets of Japan," Discussion Papers in Economics and Business 06-05, Osaka University, Graduate School of Economics.

    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:kob:dpaper:dp2017-23. 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: Office of Promoting Research Collaboration, Research Institute for Economics & Business Administration, Kobe University (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/rikobjp.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.