IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/hepoli/v138y2023ics0168851023002245.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Measuring the importance of different barriers to opioid agonist treatment using best-worst scaling in an Australian setting

Author

Listed:
  • Hall, Natasha Yvonne
  • Le, Long
  • Abimanyi-Ochom, Julie
  • Mihalopoulos, Cathy

Abstract

Opioid agonist treatment (OAT) is an effective treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD), however several client barriers to OAT are reported. Client importance of these barriers using economic preference elicitation measures have not been identified. This paper determines the most important OAT barriers using best-worst scaling (BWS) and compares the results of BWS to Likert scale.

Suggested Citation

  • Hall, Natasha Yvonne & Le, Long & Abimanyi-Ochom, Julie & Mihalopoulos, Cathy, 2023. "Measuring the importance of different barriers to opioid agonist treatment using best-worst scaling in an Australian setting," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 138(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:hepoli:v:138:y:2023:i:c:s0168851023002245
    DOI: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2023.104939
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168851023002245
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.healthpol.2023.104939?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. Marti, Joachim, 2012. "A best–worst scaling survey of adolescents' level of concern for health and non-health consequences of smoking," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 75(1), pages 87-97.
    2. Lancsar, Emily & Louviere, Jordan & Donaldson, Cam & Currie, Gillian & Burgess, Leonie, 2013. "Best worst discrete choice experiments in health: Methods and an application," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 74-82.
    3. Emily Lancsar & Jordan Louviere, 2008. "Conducting Discrete Choice Experiments to Inform Healthcare Decision Making," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 26(8), pages 661-677, August.
    4. Jordan Louviere & Terry Flynn, 2010. "Using Best-Worst Scaling Choice Experiments to Measure Public Perceptions and Preferences for Healthcare Reform in Australia," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 3(4), pages 275-283, December.
    5. Cheng Li, 2013. "Little's test of missing completely at random," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 13(4), pages 795-809, December.
    6. Axel C. Mühlbacher & Anika Kaczynski & Peter Zweifel & F. Reed Johnson, 2016. "Experimental measurement of preferences in health and healthcare using best-worst scaling: an overview," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 6(1), pages 1-14, December.
    7. Natasha Hall & Long Le & Ishani Majmudar & Maree Teesson & Cathy Mihalopoulos, 2021. "Treatment-seeking behaviour among people with opioid use disorder in the high-income countries: A systematic review and meta-analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(10), pages 1-18, October.
    8. Yves Croissant, 2020. "mlogit: Random Utility Models in R," Post-Print hal-03019603, HAL.
    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. Seda Erdem & Danny Campbell, 2017. "Preferences for public involvement in health service decisions: a comparison between best-worst scaling and trio-wise stated preference elicitation techniques," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 18(9), pages 1107-1123, December.
    2. 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.
    3. Kayode Ajewole & Elliott Dennis & Ted C. Schroeder & Jason Bergtold, 2021. "Relative valuation of food and non‐food risks with a comparison to actuarial values: A best–worst approach," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 52(6), pages 927-943, November.
    4. Tatenda T Yemeke & Elizabeth E Kiracho & Aloysius Mutebi & Rebecca R Apolot & Anthony Ssebagereka & Daniel R Evans & Sachiko Ozawa, 2020. "Health versus other sectors: Multisectoral resource allocation preferences in Mukono district, Uganda," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(7), pages 1-15, July.
    5. Samare P. I. Huls & Emily Lancsar & Bas Donkers & Jemimah Ride, 2022. "Two for the price of one: If moving beyond traditional single‐best discrete choice experiments, should we use best‐worst, best‐best or ranking for preference elicitation?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(12), pages 2630-2647, December.
    6. Shittu, A. & Kehinde, M., 2018. "Willingness to Accept Incentives for a Shift to Climate – Smart Agriculture among Smallholder Farmers in Southwest and Northcentral Nigeria," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 275983, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. Pierre-Alexandre Mahieu & Henrik Andersson & Olivier Beaumais & Romain Crastes & François-Charles Wolff, 2014. "Is Choice Experiment Becoming more Popular than Contingent Valuation? A Systematic Review in Agriculture, Environment and Health," Working Papers 2014.12, FAERE - French Association of Environmental and Resource Economists.
    10. Mesfin G. Genie & Nicolas Krucien & Mandy Ryan, 2021. "Weighting or aggregating? Investigating information processing in multi‐attribute choices," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(6), pages 1291-1305, June.
    11. Buttorff, Christine & Trujillo, Antonio J. & Diez-Canseco, Francisco & Bernabe-Ortiz, Antonio & Miranda, J. Jaime, 2015. "Evaluating consumer preferences for healthy eating from Community Kitchens in low-income urban areas: A discrete choice experiment of Comedores Populares in Peru," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 1-8.
    12. Axel Christian Mühlbacher & Anika Kaczynski, 2021. "The Impact of Gastrointestinal Symptoms on Patients’ Well-Being: Best–Worst Scaling (BWS) to Prioritize Symptoms of the Gastrointestinal Symptom Score (GIS)," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(21), pages 1-13, November.
    13. Yangui, Ahmed & Akaichi, Faical & Costa-Font, Montserrat & Gil, Jose Maria, 2019. "Comparing results of ranking conjoint analyses, best–worst scaling and discrete choice experiments in a nonhypothetical context," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 63(2), April.
    14. Kei Long Cheung & Ben F. M. Wijnen & Ilene L. Hollin & Ellen M. Janssen & John F. Bridges & Silvia M. A. A. Evers & Mickael Hiligsmann, 2016. "Using Best–Worst Scaling to Investigate Preferences in Health Care," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 34(12), pages 1195-1209, December.
    15. Hajji, Assma & Trukeschitz, Birgit & Malley, Juliette & Batchelder, Laurie & Saloniki, Eirini & Linnosmaa, Ismo & Lu, Hui, 2020. "Population-based preference weights for the Adult Social Care Outcomes Toolkit (ASCOT) for service users for Austria: Findings from a best-worst experiment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 250(C).
    16. Osman, Ahmed M.Y. & Wu, Jing & He, Xiaoning & Chen, Gang, 2021. "Eliciting SF-6Dv2 health state utilities using an anchored best-worst scaling technique," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 279(C).
    17. Rausch, Theresa Maria & Baier, Daniel & Wening, Stefanie, 2021. "Does sustainability really matter to consumers? Assessing the importance of online shop and apparel product attributes," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 63(C).
    18. Lancsar, Emily & Louviere, Jordan & Donaldson, Cam & Currie, Gillian & Burgess, Leonie, 2013. "Best worst discrete choice experiments in health: Methods and an application," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 74-82.
    19. Katrina J Davis & Marit E Kragt & Stefan Gelcich & Michael Burton & Steven Schilizzi & David J Pannell, 2017. "Why are Fishers not Enforcing Their Marine User Rights?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 67(4), pages 661-681, August.
    20. Verity Watson & Frauke Becker & Esther de Bekker‐Grob, 2017. "Discrete Choice Experiment Response Rates: A Meta‐analysis," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(6), pages 810-817, June.

    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:138:y:2023:i:c:s0168851023002245. 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.