IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/hlthec/v18y2009i8p951-976.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Exploring the social value of health‐care interventions: a stated preference discrete choice experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Colin Green
  • Karen Gerard

Abstract

Much of the literature on distributive preferences covers specific considerations in isolation, and recent reviews have suggested that research is required to inform on the relative importance of various key considerations. Responding to this research recommendation, we explore the distributive preferences of the general public using a set of generic social value judgments. We report on a discrete choice experiment (DCE) survey, using face‐to‐face interviews, in a sample of the general population (n=259). The context for the survey was resource allocation decisions in the UK National Health Service, using the process of health technology appraisal as an example. The attributes used covered health improvement, value for money, severity of health, and availability of other treatments, and it is the first such survey to use cost‐effectiveness in scenarios described to the general public. Results support the feasibility and acceptability of the DCE approach for the elicitation of public preferences. Choice data are used to consider the relative importance of changes across attribute levels, and to model utility scores and relative probabilities for the full set of combinations of attributes and levels in the experimental design used (n=64). Results allow the relative social value of health technology scenarios to be explored. Findings add to a sparse literature on ‘social’ preferences, and show that DCE data can be used to consider the strength of preference over alternative scenarios in a priority‐setting context. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:hlthec:v:18:y:2009:i:8:p:951-976
    DOI: 10.1002/hec.1414
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.1414
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/hec.1414?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Newdick, Christopher, 2005. "Who Should We Treat?: Rights, Rationing, and Resources in the NHS," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, edition 2, number 9780199264186.
    2. Stephen Birch & Amiram Gafni, 2002. "On being NICE in the UK: guidelines for technology appraisal for the NHS in England and Wales," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(3), pages 185-191, April.
    3. Louviere,Jordan J. & Hensher,David A. & Swait,Joffre D. With contributions by-Name:Adamowicz,Wiktor, 2000. "Stated Choice Methods," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521788304, October.
    4. Charny, M.C. & Lewis, P.A. & Farrow, S.C., 1989. "Choosing who shall not be treated in the NHS," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 28(12), pages 1331-1338, January.
    5. Paul Dolan & Rebecca Shaw & Aki Tsuchiya & Alan Williams, 2005. "QALY maximisation and people's preferences: a methodological review of the literature," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(2), pages 197-208, February.
    6. Stirling Bryan & Tracy Roberts & Chris Heginbotham & Alison McCallum, 2002. "QALY‐maximisation and public preferences: results from a general population survey," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(8), pages 679-693, December.
    7. Gyrd-Hansen, Dorte, 2004. "Investigating the social value of health changes," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(6), pages 1101-1116, November.
    8. Ubel, Peter A., 1999. "How stable are people's preferences for giving priority to severely ill patients?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 49(7), pages 895-903, October.
    9. Nord, Erik & Richardson, Jeff & Street, Andrew & Kuhse, Helga & Singer, Peter, 1995. "Maximizing health benefits vs egalitarianism: An Australian survey of health issues," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 41(10), pages 1429-1437, November.
    10. Ramón Álvarez-Esteban, 2008. "Using discrete choice experiments to value health and health care," International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing, Springer;International Association of Public and Non-Profit Marketing, vol. 5(2), pages 201-203, December.
    11. Edwards, Rhiannon Tudor & Boland, Angela & Wilkinson, Clare & Cohen, David & Williams, John, 2003. "Clinical and lay preferences for the explicit prioritisation of elective waiting lists: survey evidence from Wales," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 63(3), pages 229-237, March.
    12. Stirling Bryan & Paul Dolan, 2004. "Discrete choice experiments in health economics," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 5(3), pages 199-202, September.
    13. Andrew J Lloyd, 2003. "Threats to the estimation of benefit: are preference elicitation methods accurate?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(5), pages 393-402, May.
    14. Cookson, Richard & Dolan, Paul, 1999. "Public views on health care rationing: a group discussion study," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(1-2), pages 63-74, September.
    15. Nancy Devlin & David Parkin, 2004. "Does NICE have a cost‐effectiveness threshold and what other factors influence its decisions? A binary choice analysis," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(5), pages 437-452, May.
    16. W. Michael Hanemann, 1984. "Welfare Evaluations in Contingent Valuation Experiments with Discrete Responses," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 66(3), pages 332-341.
    17. Emily Lancsar & Jordan Louviere, 2006. "Deleting ‘irrational’ responses from discrete choice experiments: a case of investigating or imposing preferences?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(8), pages 797-811, August.
    18. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74(2), pages 132-132.
    19. Dakin, Helen Angela & Devlin, Nancy J. & Odeyemi, Isaac A.O., 2006. ""Yes", "No" or "Yes, but"? Multinomial modelling of NICE decision-making," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 77(3), pages 352-367, August.
    20. 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.
    21. Schwappach, David L.B. & Strasmann, Thomas J., 2006. ""Quick and dirty numbers"?: The reliability of a stated-preference technique for the measurement of preferences for resource allocation," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(3), pages 432-448, May.
    22. Nord, Erik, 1993. "The trade-off between severity of illness and treatment effect in cost-value analysis of health care," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 24(3), pages 227-238, August.
    23. 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.
    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. Green, Colin, 2009. "Investigating public preferences on 'severity of health' as a relevant condition for setting healthcare priorities," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 68(12), pages 2247-2255, June.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    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. Shah, Koonal K., 2009. "Severity of illness and priority setting in healthcare: A review of the literature," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 93(2-3), pages 77-84, December.
    6. Paul Dolan & Rebecca Shaw & Aki Tsuchiya & Alan Williams, 2005. "QALY maximisation and people's preferences: a methodological review of the literature," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(2), pages 197-208, February.
    7. David L.B. Schwappach, 2003. "Does it matter who you are or what you gain? an experimental study of preferences for resource allocation," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(4), pages 255-267, April.
    8. Angela Robinson & Judith Covey & Anne Spencer & Graham Loomes, 2007. "Are Some Deaths Worse Than Others? Results from a Discrete Choice Experiment," Working Papers 597, Queen Mary University of London, School of Economics and Finance.
    9. 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.
    10. Jeff Richardson & John McKie & Angelo Iezzi & Aimee Maxwell, 2017. "Age Weights for Health Services Derived from the Relative Social Willingness-to-Pay Instrument," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 37(3), pages 239-251, April.
    11. Hurley, Jeremiah & Mentzakis, Emmanouil, 2013. "Health-related externalities: Evidence from a choice experiment," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(4), pages 671-681.
    12. 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.
    13. Tania Stafinski & Devidas Menon & Deborah Marshall & Timothy Caulfield, 2011. "Societal Values in the Allocation of Healthcare Resources," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 4(4), pages 207-225, December.
    14. Aki Tsuchiya & Richard Edlin & Paul Dolan, 2009. "Measuring the societal value of lifetime health," Working Papers 2009010, The University of Sheffield, Department of Economics, revised May 2009.
    15. Tappenden, P & Brazier, J & Ratcliffe, J, 2006. "Does the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence take account of factors such as uncertainty and equity as well as incremental cost-effectiveness in commissioning health care services? A," MPRA Paper 29772, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    16. Adele Diederich & Jeannette Winkelhage & Norman Wirsik, 2011. "Age as a Criterion for Setting Priorities in Health Care? A Survey of the German Public View," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(8), pages 1-10, August.
    17. John McKie & Bradley Shrimpton & Jeff Richardson & Rosalind Hurworth, 2011. "The monetary value of a life year: evidence from a qualitative study of treatment costs," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(8), pages 945-957, August.
    18. Schwappach, David L.B. & Strasmann, Thomas J., 2006. ""Quick and dirty numbers"?: The reliability of a stated-preference technique for the measurement of preferences for resource allocation," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(3), pages 432-448, May.
    19. Jana Rogge & Bernhard Kittel, 2016. "Who Shall Not Be Treated: Public Attitudes on Setting Health Care Priorities by Person-Based Criteria in 28 Nations," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(6), pages 1-15, June.
    20. Nicolas Krucien & Amiram Gafni & Nathalie Pelletier‐Fleury, 2015. "Empirical Testing of the External Validity of a Discrete Choice Experiment to Determine Preferred Treatment Option: The Case of Sleep Apnea," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 24(8), pages 951-965, August.

    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:wly:hlthec:v:18:y:2009:i:8:p:951-976. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jhome/5749 .

    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.