IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/aphecp/v10y2012i2p113-126.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Insights from triangulation of two purchase choice elicitation methods to predict social decision making in healthcare

Author

Listed:
  • Jennifer Whitty
  • Sharyn Rundle-Thiele
  • Paul Scuffham

Abstract

It is important to use multiple methods to obtain a complete picture of the probability of purchase or public subsidy in a social decision-making context until further research can elaborate on our findings. This exploratory analysis supports the suggestion that the mixed logit model, which was used for the DCE analysis, may fail to adequately account for preference heterogeneity in some contexts. Copyright Adis Data Information BV 2012

Suggested Citation

  • Jennifer Whitty & Sharyn Rundle-Thiele & Paul Scuffham, 2012. "Insights from triangulation of two purchase choice elicitation methods to predict social decision making in healthcare," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 10(2), pages 113-126, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:aphecp:v:10:y:2012:i:2:p:113-126
    DOI: 10.2165/11597100-000000000-00000
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.2165/11597100-000000000-00000
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.2165/11597100-000000000-00000?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. Emily Lancsar & Jordan Louviere, 2008. "Conducting Discrete Choice Experiments to Inform Healthcare Decision Making," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 26(8), pages 661-677, August.
    2. Al, Maiwenn J. & Feenstra, Talitha & Brouwer, Werner B. F., 2004. "Decision makers' views on health care objectives and budget constraints: results from a pilot study," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(1), pages 33-48, October.
    3. Gallego, Gisselle & Taylor, Susan Joyce & Brien, Jo-anne Elizabeth, 2007. "Priority setting for high cost medications (HCMs) in public hospitals in Australia: A case study," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 84(1), pages 58-66, November.
    4. Peter A. Ubel & George Loewenstein & Dennis Scanlon & Mark Kamlet, 1996. "Individual Utilities Are Inconsistent with Rationing Choices," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 16(2), pages 108-116, June.
    5. Gold, Marthe Rachel & Franks, Peter & Siegelberg, Taryn & Sofaer, Shoshanna, 2007. "Does providing cost-effectiveness information change coverage priorities for citizens acting as social decision makers?," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 83(1), pages 65-72, September.
    6. F. Thomas Juster, 1966. "Consumer Buying Intentions and Purchase Probability: An Experiment in Survey Design," NBER Books, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc, number just66-2.
    7. Colin Green & Karen Gerard, 2009. "Exploring the social value of health‐care interventions: a stated preference discrete choice experiment," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(8), pages 951-976, August.
    8. 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, March.
    9. Eva Rodríguez‐Míguez & José‐Luis Pinto‐Prades, 2002. "Measuring the social importance of concentration or dispersion of individual health benefits," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(1), pages 43-53, January.
    10. Productivity Commission, 2005. "Impacts of Advances in Medical Technology in Australia," Research Reports, Productivity Commission, Government of Australia, number 17, July.
    11. Anthony H. Harris & Suzanne R. Hill & Geoffrey Chin & Jing Jing Li & Emily Walkom, 2008. "The Role of Value for Money in Public Insurance Coverage Decisions for Drugs in Australia: A Retrospective Analysis 1994-2004," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 28(5), pages 713-722, September.
    12. Bowling, Ann & Jacobson, Bobbie & Southgate, Lesley, 1993. "Explorations in consultation of the public and health professionals on priority setting in an inner London health district," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 37(7), pages 851-857, October.
    13. Jennifer Whitty & Paul Scuffham & Sharyn Rundle-Thielee, 2011. "Public and decision maker stated preferences for pharmaceutical subsidy decisions," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 9(2), pages 73-79, March.
    14. 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.
    15. 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.
    16. Torrance, George W., 1976. "Social preferences for health states: An empirical evaluation of three measurement techniques," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 10(3), pages 129-136.
    17. Olsen, Jan Abel & Donaldson, Cam, 1998. "Helicopters, hearts and hips: Using willingness to pay to set priorities for public sector health care programmes," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 1-12, January.
    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. Gu, Yuanyuan & Lancsar, Emily & Ghijben, Peter & Butler, James RG & Donaldson, Cam, 2015. "Attributes and weights in health care priority setting: A systematic review of what counts and to what extent," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 41-52.
    4. Jeannette Winkelhage & Adele Diederich, 2012. "The Relevance of Personal Characteristics in Allocating Health Care Resources—Controversial Preferences of Laypersons with Different Educational Backgrounds," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 9(1), pages 1-21, January.
    5. Jennifer Whitty & Emily Lancsar & Kylie Rixon & Xanthe Golenko & Julie Ratcliffe, 2014. "A Systematic Review of Stated Preference Studies Reporting Public Preferences for Healthcare Priority Setting," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 7(4), pages 365-386, December.
    6. Joanna Coast, 2001. "Citizens, their agents and health care rationing: an exploratory study using qualitative methods," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 10(2), pages 159-174, March.
    7. Richardson, Jeff & McKie, John, 2007. "Economic evaluation of services for a National Health Scheme: The case for a fairness-based framework," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(4), pages 785-799, July.
    8. Joanna Coast & Hareth Al‐Janabi & Eileen J. Sutton & Susan A. Horrocks & A. Jane Vosper & Dawn R. Swancutt & Terry N. Flynn, 2012. "Using qualitative methods for attribute development for discrete choice experiments: issues and recommendations," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(6), pages 730-741, June.
    9. Michaël Schwarzinger & Jean‐Louis Lanoë & Erik Nord & Isabelle Durand‐Zaleski, 2004. "Lack of multiplicative transitivity in person trade‐off responses," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(2), pages 171-181, February.
    10. Richardson, Jeff & Sinha, Kompal & Iezzi, Angelo & Maxwell, Aimee, 2012. "Maximising health versus sharing: Measuring preferences for the allocation of the health budget," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 75(8), pages 1351-1361.
    11. Anna Nicolet & Antoinette D I van Asselt & Karin M Vermeulen & Paul F M Krabbe, 2020. "Value judgment of new medical treatments: Societal and patient perspectives to inform priority setting in The Netherlands," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(7), pages 1-18, July.
    12. Colin Green & Karen Gerard, 2009. "Exploring the social value of health‐care interventions: a stated preference discrete choice experiment," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(8), pages 951-976, August.
    13. Rodríguez-Míguez, Eva & Herrero, Carmen & Pinto-Prades, José Luis, 2004. "Using a point system in the management of waiting lists: the case of cataracts," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 59(3), pages 585-594, August.
    14. Carlsen, Benedicte & Hole, Arne Risa & Kolstad, Julie Riise & Norheim, Ole Frithjof, 2012. "When you can’t have the cake and eat it too," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 75(11), pages 1964-1973.
    15. Lesley Chim & Glenn Salkeld & Patrick Kelly & Wendy Lipworth & Dyfrig A Hughes & Martin R Stockler, 2017. "Societal perspective on access to publicly subsidised medicines: A cross sectional survey of 3080 adults in Australia," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(3), pages 1-24, March.
    16. Terry Flynn, 2010. "Using Conjoint Analysis and Choice Experiments to Estimate QALY Values," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 28(9), pages 711-722, September.
    17. Jennifer Whitty & Paul Scuffham & Sharyn Rundle-Thielee, 2011. "Public and decision maker stated preferences for pharmaceutical subsidy decisions," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 9(2), pages 73-79, March.
    18. 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).
    19. Erik Nord & Jose Luis Pinto & Jeff Richardson & Paul Menzel & Peter Ubel, 1999. "Incorporating societal concerns for fairness in numerical valuations of health programmes," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 8(1), pages 25-39, February.
    20. Kailu Wang & Eliza Lai-Yi Wong & Amy Yuen-Kwan Wong & Annie Wai-Ling Cheung & Eng-Kiong Yeoh, 2022. "Preference of Older Adults for Flexibility in Service and Providers in Community-Based Social Care: A Discrete Choice Experiment," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(2), pages 1-13, January.

    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:spr:aphecp:v:10:y:2012:i:2:p:113-126. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.