IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/hepoli/v121y2017i3p243-249.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Eliciting preferences for medical devices in South Korea: A discrete choice experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Lee, Hye-Jae
  • Bae, Eun-Young

Abstract

This study aims to identify the attributes that contribute to the value of medical devices and quantify the relative importance of them using a discrete choice experiment. Based on a literature review and expert consultation, seven attributes and their levels were identified—severity of disease (2), availability of substitutes (2), improvement in procedure (3), improvement in clinical outcomes (2), increase in survival (2), improvement in quality of life (3), and cost (4). Among 576 hypothetical profiles, optimal choice sets with 20 choices were developed and experts experienced in health technology assessment and reimbursement decision making in South Korea were surveyed. A total of 102 respondents participated in the survey. The results of the random-effect probit model showed that among the seven attributes, six, except for improvement in procedure, had a significant impact on respondents’ choices on medical devices. Respondents were willing to pay the highest amount for devices that provided substantial improvements in quality of life, followed by increased survival, improved clinical outcome, treatment without substitutes, and technology for treating severe diseases. The findings of this experiment will inform decision-makers of the relative importance of the criteria and help them in reimbursement decision making of medical devices.

Suggested Citation

  • Lee, Hye-Jae & Bae, Eun-Young, 2017. "Eliciting preferences for medical devices in South Korea: A discrete choice experiment," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 121(3), pages 243-249.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:hepoli:v:121:y:2017:i:3:p:243-249
    DOI: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2017.01.002
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168851017300076
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.healthpol.2017.01.002?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Deborah Marshall & John Bridges & Brett Hauber & Ruthanne Cameron & Lauren Donnalley & Ken Fyie & F. Reed Johnson, 2010. "Conjoint Analysis Applications in Health — How are Studies being Designed and Reported?," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 3(4), pages 249-256, December.
    2. Esther Bekker-Grob & Bas Donkers & Marcel Jonker & Elly Stolk, 2015. "Sample Size Requirements for Discrete-Choice Experiments in Healthcare: a Practical Guide," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 8(5), pages 373-384, October.
    3. Mandy Ryan & Karen Gerard & Gillian Currie, 2012. "Using Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics," Chapters, in: Andrew M. Jones (ed.), The Elgar Companion to Health Economics, Second Edition, chapter 41, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    4. Esther W. de Bekker‐Grob & Mandy Ryan & Karen Gerard, 2012. "Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(2), pages 145-172, February.
    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. Peter Ghijben & Yuanyuan Gu & Emily Lancsar & Silva Zavarsek, 2018. "Revealed and Stated Preferences of Decision Makers for Priority Setting in Health Technology Assessment: A Systematic Review," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 36(3), pages 323-340, March.
    2. Wenbo Li & Ruyin Long & Hong Chen & Baoqi Dou & Feiyu Chen & Xiao Zheng & Zhengxia He, 2020. "Public Preference for Electric Vehicle Incentive Policies in China: A Conjoint Analysis," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(1), pages 1-16, January.
    3. Vikas Soekhai & Esther W. Bekker-Grob & Alan R. Ellis & Caroline M. Vass, 2019. "Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: Past, Present and Future," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 37(2), pages 201-226, February.
    4. van de Pol, Jeroen M. & Heringa, Mette & Koster, Ellen S. & Bouvy, Marcel L., 2021. "Preferences of patients regarding community pharmacy services: A discrete choice experiment," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 125(11), pages 1415-1420.

    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. Swait, J. & de Bekker-Grob, E.W., 2022. "A discrete choice model implementing gist-based categorization of alternatives, with applications to patient preferences for cancer screening and treatment," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 85(C).
    2. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Hensher, David A., 2021. "The landscape of econometric discrete choice modelling research," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    3. Joachim Marti & John Buckell & Johanna Catherine Maclean & Jody L. Sindelar, 2016. "To ‘Vape’ or Smoke? A Discrete Choice Experiment Among U.S. Adult Smokers," NBER Working Papers 22079, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    4. de Bekker-Grob, E.W. & Donkers, B. & Bliemer, M.C.J. & Veldwijk, J. & Swait, J.D., 2020. "Can healthcare choice be predicted using stated preference data?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 246(C).
    5. Damian Clarke & Sonia Oreffice & Climent Quintana‐Domeque, 2021. "On the Value of Birth Weight," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 83(5), pages 1130-1159, October.
    6. Galárraga, Omar & Kuo, Caroline & Mtukushe, Bulelwa & Maughan-Brown, Brendan & Harrison, Abigail & Hoare, Jackie, 2020. "iSAY (incentives for South African youth): Stated preferences of young people living with HIV," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 265(C).
    7. Buckell, John & Hess, Stephane, 2019. "Stubbing out hypothetical bias: improving tobacco market predictions by combining stated and revealed preference data," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 93-102.
    8. de Bresser, Jochem & Knoef, Marike & van Ooijen, Raun, 2022. "Preferences for in-kind and in-cash home care insurance," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 84(C).
    9. John Buckell & Vrinda Vasavada & Sarah Wordsworth & Dean A. Regier & Matthew Quaife, 2022. "Utility maximization versus regret minimization in health choice behavior: Evidence from four datasets," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(2), pages 363-381, February.
    10. Huls, Samare P.I. & de Bekker-Grob, Esther W., 2022. "Can healthcare choice be predicted using stated preference data? The role of model complexity in a discrete choice experiment about colorectal cancer screening," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 315(C).
    11. Na-na Wang & Liang-guo Luo & Ya-ru Pan & Xue-mei Ni, 2019. "Use of discrete choice experiments to facilitate design of effective environmentally friendly agricultural policies," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 21(4), pages 1543-1559, August.
    12. Chavez, Daniel E. & Palma, Marco A. & Nayga, Rodolfo M. & Mjelde, James W., 2020. "Product availability in discrete choice experiments with private goods," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 36(C).
    13. Mahieu, Pierre-Alexandre & Andersson, Henrik & Beaumais, Olivier & Crastes dit Sourd, Romain & Hess, François-Charles & Wolff, François-Charles, 2017. "Stated preferences: a unique database composed of 1657 recent published articles in journals related to agriculture, environment, or health," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), vol. 98(3), November.
    14. Brouwers, Jonas & Cox, Bianca & Van Wilder, Astrid & Claessens, Fien & Bruyneel, Luk & De Ridder, Dirk & Eeckloo, Kristof & Vanhaecht, Kris, 2021. "The future of hospital quality of care policy: A multi-stakeholder discrete choice experiment in Flanders, Belgium," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 125(12), pages 1565-1573.
    15. Dimitrios Gouglas & Kendall Hoyt & Elizabeth Peacocke & Aristidis Kaloudis & Trygve Ottersen & John-Arne Røttingen, 2019. "Setting Strategic Objectives for the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations: An Exploratory Decision Analysis Process," Service Science, INFORMS, vol. 49(6), pages 430-446, November.
    16. Marta Trapero-Bertran & Beatriz Rodríguez-Martín & Julio López-Bastida, 2019. "What attributes should be included in a discrete choice experiment related to health technologies? A systematic literature review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(7), pages 1-15, July.
    17. Holte, Jon Helgheim & Kjaer, Trine & Abelsen, Birgit & Olsen, Jan Abel, 2015. "The impact of pecuniary and non-pecuniary incentives for attracting young doctors to rural general practice," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 1-9.
    18. Andrew Briggs, 2016. "A View from the Bridge: Health Economic Evaluation — A Value‐Based Framework?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 25(12), pages 1499-1502, December.
    19. Phu Nguyen Van & Thierry Blayac & Dimitri Dubois & Sebastien Duchene & Marc Willinger & Bruno Ventelou, 2021. "Designing acceptable anti-COVID-19 policies by taking into account individuals’ preferences: evidence from a Discrete Choice Experiment," EconomiX Working Papers 2021-33, University of Paris Nanterre, EconomiX.
    20. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Rose, John M. & Oppewal, Harmen & Lancsar, Emily, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part I. Macro-scale analysis of literature and integrative synthesis of empirical evidence from applied economics, experimental psychology and neuroimag," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).

    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:eee:hepoli:v:121:y:2017:i:3:p:243-249. 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: Catherine Liu or the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/healthpol .

    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.