IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/pharme/v30y2012i12d10.2165_11598040-000000000-00000.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

What’s Good and Bad About Contraceptive Products?

Author

Listed:
  • Stephanie A. Knox

    (University of Technology Sydney)

  • Rosalie C. Viney

    (University of Technology Sydney)

  • Deborah J. Street

    (University of Technology Sydney)

  • Marion R. Haas

    (University of Technology Sydney)

  • Denzil G. Fiebig

    (University of New South Wales)

  • Edith Weisberg

    (Sydney Centre for Reproductive Health Research)

  • Deborah Bateson

    (Sydney Centre for Reproductive Health Research)

Abstract

Background In the past decade, the range of contraceptives available has increased dramatically. There are limited data on the factors that determine women’s choices on contraceptive alternatives or what factors providers consider most important when recommending contraceptive products to women. Objectives Our objectives were to compare women’s (consumers’) preferences and GPs’ (providers’) views in relation to existing and new contraceptive methods, and particularly to examine what factors increase the acceptability of different contraceptive products. Methods A best-worst attribute stated-choice experiment was completed online. Participants (Australian women of reproductive age and Australian GPs) completed questions on 16 contraceptive profiles. 200 women of reproductive age were recruited through a commercial panel. GPs from all states of Australia were randomly sampled and approached by phone; 162 GPs agreed to participate. Participants chose the best and worst attribute levels of hypothetical but realistic prescribed contraceptive products. Best and worst choices were modelled using multinomial logit and product features were ranked from best to worst according to the size of model coefficients. Results The most attractive feature of the contraceptive products for both GPs and women consumers were an administration frequency of longer than 1 year and light or no bleeding. Women indicated that the hormonal vaginal ring was the least attractive mode of administration. Conclusions Women and GPs agree that longer-acting methods with less bleeding are important features in preferred methods of contraception; however, women are also attracted to products involving less invasive modes of administration. While the vaginal ring may fill the niche in Australia for a relatively non-invasive, moderately long-acting and effective contraceptive, the results of this study indicate that GPs will need to promote the benefits of the vaginal ring to overcome negative perceptions about this method among women who may benefit from using it.

Suggested Citation

  • Stephanie A. Knox & Rosalie C. Viney & Deborah J. Street & Marion R. Haas & Denzil G. Fiebig & Edith Weisberg & Deborah Bateson, 2012. "What’s Good and Bad About Contraceptive Products?," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 30(12), pages 1187-1202, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:pharme:v:30:y:2012:i:12:d:10.2165_11598040-000000000-00000
    DOI: 10.2165/11598040-000000000-00000
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.2165/11598040-000000000-00000
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.2165/11598040-000000000-00000?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 look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Louviere, Jordan J. & Islam, Towhidul, 2008. "A comparison of importance weights and willingness-to-pay measures derived from choice-based conjoint, constant sum scales and best-worst scaling," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 61(9), pages 903-911, September.
    2. Flynn, Terry N. & Louviere, Jordan J. & Peters, Tim J. & Coast, Joanna, 2007. "Best-worst scaling: What it can do for health care research and how to do it," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 171-189, January.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. Lancsar, Emily & Louviere, Jordan & Flynn, Terry, 2007. "Several methods to investigate relative attribute impact in stated preference experiments," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 64(8), pages 1738-1753, April.
    6. Coast, Joanna & Flynn, Terry N. & Natarajan, Lucy & Sproston, Kerry & Lewis, Jane & Louviere, Jordan J. & Peters, Tim J., 2008. "Valuing the ICECAP capability index for older people," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 67(5), pages 874-882, September.
    7. 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.
    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. Knox, Stephanie A. & Viney, Rosalie C. & Gu, Yuanyuan & Hole, Arne R. & Fiebig, Denzil G. & Street, Deborah J. & Haas, Marion R. & Weisberg, Edith & Bateson, Deborah, 2013. "The effect of adverse information and positive promotion on women's preferences for prescribed contraceptive products," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 70-80.

    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. 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.
    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. 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.
    4. Jiang, Shan & Gu, Yuanyuan & Yang, Fan & Wu, Tao & Wang, Hui & Cutler, Henry & Zhang, Lufa, 2020. "Tertiary hospitals or community clinics? An enquiry into the factors affecting patients' choice for healthcare facilities in urban China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 63(C).
    5. Soto, José R. & Adams, Damian C. & Escobedo, Francisco J., 2016. "Landowner attitudes and willingness to accept compensation from forest carbon offsets: Application of best–worst choice modeling in Florida USA," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 35-42.
    6. Emily Lancsar & Denzil G. Fiebig & Arne Risa Hole, 2017. "Discrete Choice Experiments: A Guide to Model Specification, Estimation and Software," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 35(7), pages 697-716, July.
    7. Emily Lancsar & Jordan Louviere, 2008. "Conducting Discrete Choice Experiments to Inform Healthcare Decision Making," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 26(8), pages 661-677, August.
    8. Christian Wankmüller & Maximilian Kunovjanek & Robert Gennaro Sposato & Gerald Reiner, 2020. "Selecting E-Mobility Transport Solutions for Mountain Rescue Operations," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(24), pages 1-19, December.
    9. Giulia Greco, 2018. "Setting the Weights: The Women’s Capabilities Index for Malawi," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 135(2), pages 457-478, January.
    10. Richard Norman & Jane Hall & Deborah Street & Rosalie Viney, 2013. "Efficiency And Equity: A Stated Preference Approach," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(5), pages 568-581, May.
    11. Marco Lerro & Giuseppe Marotta & Concetta Nazzaro, 2020. "Measuring consumers’ preferences for craft beer attributes through Best-Worst Scaling," Agricultural and Food Economics, Springer;Italian Society of Agricultural Economics (SIDEA), vol. 8(1), pages 1-13, December.
    12. Terry N. Flynn & Elisabeth Huynh & Tim J. Peters & Hareth Al‐Janabi & Sam Clemens & Alison Moody & Joanna Coast, 2015. "Scoring the Icecap‐a Capability Instrument. Estimation of a UK General Population Tariff," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 24(3), pages 258-269, March.
    13. Feucht, Yvonne & Zander, Katrin, 2017. "Consumers’ attitudes on carbon footprint labelling. Results of the SUSDIET project," Thünen Working Paper 266396, Johann Heinrich von Thünen-Institut (vTI), Federal Research Institute for Rural Areas, Forestry and Fisheries.
    14. Terry Flynn, 2010. "Using Conjoint Analysis and Choice Experiments to Estimate QALY Values," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 28(9), pages 711-722, September.
    15. Shehely Parvin & Paul Wang & Jashim Uddin, 2016. "Using best-worst scaling method to examine consumers’ value preferences: A multidimensional perspective," Cogent Business & Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 3(1), pages 1199110-119, December.
    16. Rubino, Elena C. & Pienaar, Elizabeth F. & Soto, José R., 2018. "Structuring Legal Trade in Rhino Horn to Incentivize the Participation of South African Private Landowners," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 154(C), pages 306-316.
    17. Simone Mueller & Larry Lockshin & Jordan Louviere, 2010. "What you see may not be what you get: Asking consumers what matters may not reflect what they choose," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 21(4), pages 335-350, December.
    18. Erdem, Seda & Rigby, Dan, 2011. "Using Best Worst Scaling To Investigate Perceptions Of Control & Concern Over Food And Non-Food Risks," 85th Annual Conference, April 18-20, 2011, Warwick University, Coventry, UK 108790, Agricultural Economics Society.
    19. 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.
    20. 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).

    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:pharme:v:30:y:2012:i:12:d:10.2165_11598040-000000000-00000. 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.