IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/hlthec/v7y1998i7p595-603.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Magnetic resonance imaging for the investigation of knee injuries: an investigation of preferences

Author

Listed:
  • Stirling Bryan
  • Martin Buxton
  • Robert Sheldon
  • Alison Grant

Abstract

The conventional approach to the diagnosis and treatment of severe knee injuries is arthroscopy, a minimally invasive surgical procedure. Since arthroscopy is an invasive technique that carries risks, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is increasingly being used for diagnosis. MRI is potentially associated with diagnostic and therapeutic ‘impacts’, in that arthroscopy can be avoided. This paper reports a discrete choice conjoint analysis exercise that assessed the value placed on such ‘impacts’ by potential patients and investigated the degree to which respondents were willing to trade between process and outcome. The marginal rates of substitution between attributes were estimated. The results suggest that the diagnostic and therapeutic ‘impacts’ of MRI were valued by many respondents. The study has highlighted a number of important issues for the design and analysis of future health‐related conjoint studies, including the use of treatment cost as an attribute, dealing with data from lexicographic respondents, and distinguishing between points of indifference and missing data. © 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Suggested Citation

  • Stirling Bryan & Martin Buxton & Robert Sheldon & Alison Grant, 1998. "Magnetic resonance imaging for the investigation of knee injuries: an investigation of preferences," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 7(7), pages 595-603, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:hlthec:v:7:y:1998:i:7:p:595-603
    DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1050(1998110)7:7<595::AID-HEC381>3.0.CO;2-E
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1050(1998110)7:73.0.CO;2-E
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1050(1998110)7:7<595::AID-HEC381>3.0.CO;2-E?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. Magat, Wesley A. & Kip Viscusi, W. & Huber, Joel, 1988. "Paired comparison and contingent valuation approaches to morbidity risk valuation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 15(4), pages 395-411, December.
    2. Arne Maas & Lukas Stalpers, 1992. "Assessing Utilities by Means of Conjoint Measurement," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 12(4), pages 288-297, December.
    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. Mandy Ryan, 1996. "Using Consumer Preferences in Health Care Decision Making: The Application of Conjoint Analysis," Monograph 000420, Office of Health Economics.
    2. 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.
    3. Olmstead, Todd & Zeckhauser, Richard, 1999. "The menu-setting problem and subsidized prices: drug formulary illustration," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(5), pages 523-550, October.
    4. José Miguel Sánchez U., 2013. "Contingent valuation and choice experiments applied to the Sierra Nevada National Park in Venezuela," Economía, Instituto de Investigaciones Económicas y Sociales (IIES). Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Sociales. Universidad de Los Andes. Mérida, Venezuela, vol. 38(35), pages 57-100, January-J.
    5. Emma McIntosh, 2006. "Using Discrete Choice Experiments within a Cost-Benefit Analysis Framework," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 24(9), pages 855-868, September.
    6. Stevens, T. H. & Belkner, R. & Dennis, D. & Kittredge, D. & Willis, C., 2000. "Comparison of contingent valuation and conjoint analysis in ecosystem management," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 63-74, January.
    7. Richard T. Carson, 2011. "Contingent Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2489.
    8. Jonathan E. Alevy & John A. List & Wiktor L. Adamowicz, 2011. "How Can Behavioral Economics Inform Nonmarket Valuation? An Example from the Preference Reversal Literature," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 87(3), pages 365-381.
    9. Harry Telser & Peter Zweifel, 2002. "Measuring willingness‐to‐pay for risk reduction: an application of conjoint analysis," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(2), pages 129-139, March.
    10. Oviedo, José L. & Caparrós, Alejandro, 2015. "Information and visual attention in contingent valuation and choice modeling: field and eye-tracking experiments applied to reforestations in Spain," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(4), pages 185-204.
    11. Ryan, Mandy & Netten, Ann & Skatun, Diane & Smith, Paul, 2006. "Using discrete choice experiments to estimate a preference-based measure of outcome--An application to social care for older people," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(5), pages 927-944, September.
    12. Veisten, Knut, 2007. "Willingness to pay for eco-labelled wood furniture: Choice-based conjoint analysis versus open-ended contingent valuation," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 13(1), pages 29-48, May.
    13. Siikamaki, Juha & Layton, David F., 2001. "Logit Models For Pooled Contingent Valuation And Contingent Rating And Ranking Data: Valuing Benefits From Forest Biodiversity Conservation," 2001 Annual meeting, August 5-8, Chicago, IL 20616, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    14. Farber, Stephen & Griner, Brian, 2000. "Valuing watershed quality improvements using conjoint analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 63-76, July.
    15. Stirling Bryan & Lisa Gold & Rob Sheldon & Martin Buxton, 2000. "Preference measurement using conjoint methods: an empirical investigation of reliability," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 9(5), pages 385-395, July.
    16. Caplan, Arthur & Grijalva, Therese & Jackson-Smith, Douglas, 2007. "Using choice question formats to determine compensable values: The case of a landfill-siting process," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(4), pages 834-846, February.
    17. Mandy Ryan & Jenny Hughes, 1997. "Using Conjoint Analysis to Assess Women's Preferences for Miscarriage Management," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 6(3), pages 261-273, May.
    18. Cherry, Todd L. & Crocker, Thomas D. & Shogren, Jason F., 2003. "Rationality spillovers," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 63-84, January.
    19. Shiell, Alan, 1997. "Health outcomes are about choices and values: an economic perspective on the health outcomes movement," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 5-15, January.
    20. 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.

    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:7:y:1998:i:7:p:595-603. 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.