Advertisement

PharmacoEconomics

, Volume 32, Issue 9, pp 883–902 | Cite as

Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: A Review of the Literature

  • Michael D. Clark
  • Domino Determann
  • Stavros Petrou
  • Domenico Moro
  • Esther W. de Bekker-Grob
Systematic Review

Abstract

Background

Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) are increasingly used in health economics to address a wide range of health policy-related concerns.

Objective

Broadly adopting the methodology of an earlier systematic review of health-related DCEs, which covered the period 2001–2008, we report whether earlier trends continued during 2009–2012.

Methods

This paper systematically reviews health-related DCEs published between 2009 and 2012, using the same database as the earlier published review (PubMed) to obtain citations, and the same range of search terms.

Results

A total of 179 health-related DCEs for 2009–2012 met the inclusion criteria for the review. We found a continuing trend towards conducting DCEs across a broader range of countries. However, the trend towards including fewer attributes was reversed, whilst the trend towards interview-based DCEs reversed because of increased computer administration. The trend towards using more flexible econometric models, including mixed logit and latent class, has also continued. Reporting of monetary values has fallen compared with earlier periods, but the proportion of studies estimating trade-offs between health outcomes and experience factors, or valuing outcomes in terms of utility scores, has increased, although use of odds ratios and probabilities has declined. The reassuring trend towards the use of more flexible and appropriate DCE designs and econometric methods has been reinforced by the increased use of qualitative methods to inform DCE processes and results. However, qualitative research methods are being used less often to inform attribute selection, which may make DCEs more susceptible to omitted variable bias if the decision framework is not known prior to the research project.

Conclusions

The use of DCEs in healthcare continues to grow dramatically, as does the scope of applications across an expanding range of countries. There is increasing evidence that more sophisticated approaches to DCE design and analytical techniques are improving the quality of final outputs. That said, recent evidence that the use of qualitative methods to inform attribute selection has declined is of concern.

Keywords

Discrete Choice Experiment Latent Class Model Mixed Logit Preference Heterogeneity Random Utility Theory 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Conflict of interest

Dr. Michael D. Clark: no conflict of interest. Mr. Clark wrote the drafts of the paper, and then took on board feedback from co-authors and peer reviewers in order to further refine it. He will act as overall guarantor for this work. He also evaluated many of the analyses relating to the new review period (2009–2012), and conducted some of the literature searches. Dr. Domino Determann: no conflict of interest. Determann MD reviewed a significant proportion of DCE papers relating to the period 2009–2012, and conducted many of the literature searches. She also provided feedback on early drafts of the paper and suggested some amendments.

Professor Stavros Petrou: no conflict of interest. Professor Petrou supervised this new DCE review from the outset, and commented on drafts of the paper, suggesting edits.

Dr. Domenico Moro: no conflict of interest. Dr. Moro reviewed some papers involving the use of mixed logit or latent class models. He was part of the review team from the onset, and commented on drafts of the paper when appropriate.

Dr. Esther de Bekker-Grob: no conflict of interest. As the first author of a high-profile published review of the DCE literature [3] which reviewed the DCE literature for the period 2001–2008, this co-author helped to ensure consistency with the earlier published review in terms of application of review criteria. She also commented on drafts of the paper, and made some valuable contributions to the points raised by the paper in Sects. 9 and 10.

Ethics committee approval

Not required.

Supplementary material

40273_2014_170_MOESM1_ESM.doc (158 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOC 159 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Lancaster K. New approach to consumer theory. J Polit Econ. 1966;74(2):132–57.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    McFadden D. Computing willingness-to-pay in random utility models. Trade theory and econometrics, chap. 15. In: Essays in honour of John S. Chipman. Studies in the Modern World Economy; 1999. p. 253–74.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    de Bekker-Grob EW, Ryan M, Gerard K. Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature. Health Econ. 2012;21(2):145–72.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ryan M, Gerard K. Using discrete choice experiments to value health care programmes: current practice and future research reflections. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2003;2(1):55–64.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    de Bekker-Grob EW, Chorus CG. Random regret-based discrete-choice modelling: an application to healthcare. Pharmacoeconomics. 2013;31(7):623–34.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Petrou S, McIntosh E. Commentary: Using stated preference discrete choice experiments to elicit women’s preferences for aspects of maternity care. Birth. 2011;38(1):47–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lagarde M, Blaauw D. A review of the application and contribution of discrete choice experiments to inform human resources policy interventions. Hum Resour Health. 2009;7:62.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Clark MD, et al. ‘A better way to measure choices’, discrete choice experiment/conjoint analysis studies in Nephrology—a literature review. Eur Med J Nephrol. 2013;1:52–9.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Marshall D, et al. Conjoint analysis applications in health—how are studies being designed and reported? An update on current practice in the published literature between 2005 and 2008. Patient. 2010;3(4):249–56.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Anderson JL, et al. 2011 ACCF/AHA focused update incorporated into the ACC/AHA 2007 guidelines for the management of patients with unstable angina/non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. Circulation. 2011;123(18):e426–579.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Reed Johnson F, et al. Constructing experimental designs for discrete-choice experiments: report of the ISPOR Conjoint Analysis Experimental Design Good Research Practices Task Force. Value Health. 2013;16(1):3–13.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Coast J, Horrocks S. Developing attributes and levels for discrete choice experiments using qualitative methods. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2007;12(1):25–30.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fraenkel L. Conjoint analysis at the individual patient level: issues to consider as we move from a research to a clinical tool. Patient. 2008;1(4):251–3.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lancsar E, Louviere J. Conducting discrete choice experiments to inform healthcare decision making: a user’s guide. Pharmacoeconomics. 2008;26(8):661–77.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Coast J, et al. Using qualitative methods for attribute development for discrete choice experiments: issues and recommendations. Health Econ. 2012;21(6):730–41.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bridges JF, et al. Conjoint analysis applications in health—a checklist: a report of the ISPOR Good Research Practices for Conjoint Analysis Task Force. Value Health. 2011;14(4):403–13.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Flynn TN. Valuing citizen and patient preferences in health: recent developments in three types of best–worst scaling. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2010;10(3):259–67.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lancsar E, et al. Best worst discrete choice experiments in health: methods and an application. Soc Sci Med. 2013;76(1):74–82.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bell RA, et al. Encouraging patients with depressive symptoms to seek care: a mixed methods approach to message development. Patient Educ Couns. 2010;78(2):198–205.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    de Achaval S, et al. Impact of educational and patient decision aids on decisional conflict associated with total knee arthroplasty. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2012;64(2):229–37.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Fraenkel L, et al. Patients’ preferences for treatment of hepatitis C. Med Decis Making. 2010;30(1):45–57.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Fraenkel L. Feasibility of using modified adaptive conjoint analysis importance questions. Patient. 2010;3(4):209–15.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Gregorian RS Jr, et al. Importance of side effects in opioid treatment: a trade-off analysis with patients and physicians. J Pain. 2010;11(11):1095–108.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    de Groot IB, et al. Is the impact of hospital performance data greater in patients who have compared hospitals? BMC Health Serv Res. 2011;11:214.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    de Groot IB, et al. Choosing between hospitals: the influence of the experiences of other patients. Med Decis Making. 2012;32(6):764–78.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Meister H, et al. Utility and importance of hearing-aid features assessed by hearing-aid acousticians. Trends Amplif. 2010;14(3):155–63.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Pieterse AH, et al. Adaptive conjoint analysis as individual preference assessment tool: feasibility through the internet and reliability of preferences. Patient Educ Couns. 2010;78(2):224–33.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Pieterse AH, Stiggelbout AM, Marijnen CA. Methodologic evaluation of adaptive conjoint analysis to assess patient preferences: an application in oncology. Health Expect. 2010;13(4):392–405.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Rochon D, et al. Elderly patients’ experiences using adaptive conjoint analysis software as a decision aid for osteoarthritis of the knee. Health Expect. 2012.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Halme M, Linden K, Kaaria K. Patients’ preferences for generic and branded over-the-counter medicines: an adaptive conjoint analysis approach. Patient. 2009;2(4):243–55.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Ahmed SF, Smith WA, Blamires C. Facilitating and understanding the family’s choice of injection device for growth hormone therapy by using conjoint analysis. Arch Dis Child. 2008;93(2):110–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Beusterien KM, et al. Understanding patient preferences for HIV medications using adaptive conjoint analysis: feasibility assessment. Value Health. 2005;8(4):453–61.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Beusterien KM, et al. Patient preferences among third agent HIV medications: a US and German perspective. AIDS Care. 2007;19(8):982–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Gan TJ, et al. Patient preferences for acute pain treatment. Br J Anaesth. 2004;92(5):681–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Fraenkel L, Bodardus S, Wittnik DR. Understanding patient preferences for the treatment of lupus nephritis with adaptive conjoint analysis. Med Care. 2001;39(11):1203–16.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Fraenkel L, Bogardus ST Jr, Wittink DR. Risk-attitude and patient treatment preferences. Lupus. 2003;12(5):370–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Fraenkel L, et al. Informed choice and the widespread use of antiinflammatory drugs. Arthritis Rheum. 2004;51(2):210–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Fraenkel L, et al. Patient preferences for treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis. 2004;63(11):1372–8.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Fraenkel L, et al. Are preferences for cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors influenced by the certainty effect? J Rheumatol. 2004;31(3):591–3.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Fraenkel L, Gulanski B, Wittink D. Patient treatment preferences for osteoporosis. Arthritis Rheum. 2006;55(5):729–35.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Fraenkel L, Gulanski B, Wittink D. Patient willingness to take teriparatide. Patient Educ Couns. 2007;65(2):237–44.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Fraenkel L, Fried T. If you want patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA) to exercise: tell them about NSAIDS. Patient. 2008;1(1):21–6.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Pieterse AH, et al. Benefit from preoperative radiotherapy in rectal cancer treatment: disease-free patients’ and oncologists’ preferences. Br J Cancer. 2007;97(6):717–24.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Stiggelbout AM, et al. Individual quality of life: adaptive conjoint analysis as an alternative for direct weighting? Qual Life Res. 2008;17(4):641–9.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Boonen LH, et al. Which preferred providers are really preferred? Effectiveness of insurers’ channeling incentives on pharmacy choice. Int J Health Care Finance Econ. 2009;9(4):347–66.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Damman OC, et al. Consumers’ interpretation and use of comparative information on the quality of health care: the effect of presentation approaches. Health Expect. 2012;15(2):197–211.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Davison SN, Kromm SK, Currie GR. Patient and health professional preferences for organ allocation and procurement, end-of-life care and organization of care for patients with chronic kidney disease using a discrete choice experiment. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2010;25(7):2334–41.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Eisingerich AB, et al. Attitudes and acceptance of oral and parenteral HIV preexposure prophylaxis among potential user groups: a multinational study. PLoS ONE. 2012;7(1):e28238.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Gerard K, et al. Valuing the extended role of prescribing pharmacist in general practice: results from a discrete choice experiment. Value Health. 2012;15(5):699–707.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Gidengil CT, et al. Parental and societal values for the risks and benefits of childhood combination vaccines. Vaccine. 2012;30(23):3445–52.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Goodall S, et al. Preferences for support services among adolescents and young adults with cancer or a blood disorder: a discrete choice experiment. Health Policy. 2012;107(2–3):304–11.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Hancock-Howard RL, et al. Public preferences for counseling regarding antidepressant use during pregnancy: a discrete choice experiment. Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol. 2012;94(7):532–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Hill M, et al. Women’s and health professionals’ preferences for prenatal tests for Down syndrome: a discrete choice experiment to contrast noninvasive prenatal diagnosis with current invasive tests. Genet Med. 2012;14(11):905–13.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Kimman ML, et al. Follow-up after treatment for breast cancer: one strategy fits all? An investigation of patient preferences using a discrete choice experiment. Acta Oncol. 2010;49(3):328–37.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Kruk ME, et al. Women’s preferences for obstetric care in rural Ethiopia: a population-based discrete choice experiment in a region with low rates of facility delivery. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2010;64(11):984–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Landfeldt E, et al. Patient preferences for characteristics differentiating ovarian stimulation treatments. Hum Reprod. 2012;27(3):760–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Mentzakis E, Ryan M, McNamee P. Using discrete choice experiments to value informal care tasks: exploring preference heterogeneity. Health Econ. 2011;20(8):930–44.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Miners A, et al. Assessing user preferences for sexually transmitted infection testing services: a discrete choice experiment. Sex Transm Infect. 2012;88(7):510–6.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Mohamed AF, et al. Patient and parent preferences for immunoglobulin treatments: a conjoint analysis. J Med Econ. 2012;15(6):1183–91.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Naik-Panvelkar P, et al. Patients’ value of asthma services in Australian pharmacies: the way ahead for asthma care. J Asthma. 2012;49(3):310–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Naik-Panvelkar P, et al. Patient preferences for community pharmacy asthma services: a discrete choice experiment. Pharmacoeconomics. 2012;30(10):961–76.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Pedersen LB, et al. Do general practitioners know patients’ preferences? An empirical study on the agency relationship at an aggregate level using a discrete choice experiment. Value Health. 2012;15(3):514–23.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Poulos C, et al. Consumer preferences for household water treatment products in Andhra Pradesh, India. Soc Sci Med. 2012;75(4):738–46.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    van der Pol M, et al. Eliciting individual preferences for health care: a case study of perinatal care. Health Expect. 2010;13(1):4–12.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Waltzman JT, Scholz T, Evans GR. What patients look for when choosing a plastic surgeon: an assessment of patient preference by conjoint analysis. Ann Plast Surg. 2011;66(6):643–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Yeo ST, et al. Preferences of people with diabetes for diabetic retinopathy screening: a discrete choice experiment. Diabet Med. 2012;29(7):869–77.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Yi D, et al. Using discrete choice experiments to inform randomised controlled trials: an application to chronic low back pain management in primary care. Eur J Pain. 2011;15(5):531e1–10.Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Bederman S, Mahomed N. In the eye of the beholder: preferences of patients, family physicians, and surgeons for lumbar spinal surgery. Spine. 2009;35(1):108–15.Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Bridges JF, et al. Patients’ preferences for treatment outcomes for advanced non-small cell lung cancer: a conjoint analysis. Lung Cancer. 2012;77(1):224–31.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Chancellor J, et al. Stated preferences of physicians and chronic pain sufferers in the use of classic strong opioids. Value Health. 2012;15(1):106–17.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Clark M, et al. Prioritizing patients for renal transplantation? Analysis of patient preferences for kidney allocation according to ethnicity and gender. J Divers Health Soc Care. 2009;6:181–91.Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Clark MD, et al. Who should be prioritized for renal transplantation? Analysis of key stakeholder preferences using discrete choice experiments. BMC Nephrol. 2012;13:152.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Hauber AB, et al. Treatment preferences and medication adherence of people with type 2 diabetes using oral glucose-lowering agents. Diabet Med. 2009;26(4):416–24.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Hauber AB, et al. Estimating importance weights for the IWQOL-Lite using conjoint analysis. Qual Life Res. 2010;19(5):701–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Hauber AB, et al. Patient preferences for reducing toxicities of treatments for gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST). Patient Prefer Adherence. 2011;5:307–14.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Johnson FR, Hauber AB, Ozdemir S. Using conjoint analysis to estimate healthy-year equivalents for acute conditions: an application to vasomotor symptoms. Value Health. 2009;12(1):146–52.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Potoglou D, et al. Best–worst scaling vs. discrete choice experiments: an empirical comparison using social care data. Soc Sci Med. 2011;72(10):1717–27.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Ratcliffe J, et al. Using DCE and ranking data to estimate cardinal values for health states for deriving a preference-based single index from the sexual quality of life questionnaire. Health Econ. 2009;18(11):1261–76.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    van Til JA, Stiggelbout AM, Ijzerman MJ. The effect of information on preferences stated in a choice-based conjoint analysis. Patient Educ Couns. 2009;74(2):264–71.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Wittink MN, et al. Towards patient-centered care for depression: conjoint methods to tailor treatment based on preferences. Patient. 2010;3(3):145–57.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Ahmed A, Fincham JE. Patients’ view of retail clinics as a source of primary care: boon for nurse practitioners? J Am Acad Nurse Pract. 2011;23(4):193–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Albada A, Triemstra M. Patients’ priorities for ambulatory hospital care centres. A survey and discrete choice experiment among elderly and chronically ill patients of a Dutch hospital. Health Expect. 2009;12(1):92–105.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Bansback N, et al. The effect of direct-to-consumer genetic tests on anticipated affect and health-seeking behaviors: a pilot survey. Genet Test Mol Biomarkers. 2012;16(10):1165–71.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Bijlenga D, Bonsel GJ, Birnie E. Eliciting willingness to pay in obstetrics: comparing a direct and an indirect valuation method for complex health outcomes. Health Econ. 2011;20(11):1392–406.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Bogelund M, et al. Patient preferences for diabetes management among people with type 2 diabetes in Denmark—a discrete choice experiment. Curr Med Res Opin. 2011;27(11):2175–83.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Bridges JF, et al. Can patients diagnosed with schizophrenia complete choice-based conjoint analysis tasks? Patient. 2011;4(4):267–75.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Bridges JF, et al. Consumer preferences for hearing aid attributes: a comparison of rating and conjoint analysis methods. Trends Amplif. 2012;16(1):40–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Bridges JF, et al. Designing family-centered male circumcision services: a conjoint analysis approach. Patient. 2012;5(2):101–11.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Brown DS, et al. Estimating older adults’ preferences for walking programs via conjoint analysis. Am J Prev Med. 2009;36(3):201–7 e4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Brown TM, et al. The perspective of patients with haemophilia with inhibitors and their care givers: preferences for treatment characteristics. Haemophilia. 2011;17(3):476–82.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Bunge E, et al. Patients’ preferences for scoliosis brace treatment. Spine. 2009;35(1):57–63.Google Scholar
  92. 92.
    Burnett HF, et al. Parents’ preferences for drug treatments in juvenile idiopathic arthritis: a discrete choice experiment. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2012;64(9):1382–91.Google Scholar
  93. 93.
    Chan YM, et al. Chinese women’s preferences for prenatal diagnostic procedure and their willingness to trade between procedures. Prenat Diagn. 2009;29(13):1270–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Cheng J, et al. An empirical comparison of methods for analyzing correlated data from a discrete choice survey to elicit patient preference for colorectal cancer screening. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2012;12:15.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    Damen TH, et al. Patients’ preferences for breast reconstruction: a discrete choice experiment. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2011;64(1):75–83.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    Darba J, et al. Patient preferences for osteoporosis in Spain: a discrete choice experiment. Osteoporos Int. 2011;22(6):1947–54.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  97. 97.
    de Bekker-Grob EW, et al. Preferences of GPs and patients for preventive osteoporosis drug treatment: a discrete-choice experiment. Pharmacoeconomics. 2009;27(3):211–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  98. 98.
    de Bekker-Grob EW, et al. Girls’ preferences for HPV vaccination: a discrete choice experiment. Vaccine. 2010;28(41):6692–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  99. 99.
    Deverill M, et al. Antenatal care for first time mothers: a discrete choice experiment of women’s views on alternative packages of care. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2010;151(1):33–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  100. 100.
    Eberth B, et al. Does one size fit all? Investigating heterogeneity in men’s preferences for benign prostatic hyperplasia treatment using mixed logit analysis. Med Decis Making. 2009;29(6):707–15.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  101. 101.
    Essers BA, et al. Assessing the public’s preference for surgical treatment of primary basal cell carcinoma: a discrete-choice experiment in the south of the Netherlands. Dermatol Surg. 2010;36(12):1950–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  102. 102.
    Essers BA, et al. Does the inclusion of a cost attribute result in different preferences for the surgical treatment of primary basal cell carcinoma? A comparison of two discrete-choice experiments. Pharmacoeconomics. 2010;28(6):507–20.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  103. 103.
    Faggioli G, et al. Preferences of patients, their family caregivers and vascular surgeons in the choice of abdominal aortic aneurysms treatment options: the PREFER study. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2011;42(1):26–34.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  104. 104.
    Glenngard AH, et al. Patient preferences and willingness-to-pay for ADHD treatment with stimulants using discrete choice experiment (DCE) in Sweden, Denmark and Norway. Nord J Psychiatry. 2013;67(5):351–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  105. 105.
    Goto R, et al. A cohort study to examine whether time and risk preference is related to smoking cessation success. Addiction. 2009;104(6):1018–24.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  106. 106.
    Goto R, Takahashi Y, Ida T. Changes in smokers’ attitudes toward intended cessation attempts in Japan. Value Health. 2011;14(5):785–91.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  107. 107.
    Green C, Gerard K. Exploring the social value of health-care interventions: a stated preference discrete choice experiment. Health Econ. 2009;18(8):951–76.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  108. 108.
    Guimaraes C, et al. A valuation of patients’ willingness-to-pay for insulin delivery in diabetes. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009;25(3):359–66.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  109. 109.
    Hodgkins P, et al. Patient preferences for first-line oral treatment for mild-to-moderate ulcerative colitis: a discrete-choice experiment. Patient. 2012;5(1):33–44.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  110. 110.
    Hol L, et al. Preferences for colorectal cancer screening strategies: a discrete choice experiment. Br J Cancer. 2010;102(6):972–80.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  111. 111.
    Hong SH, et al. Conjoint analysis of patient preferences on Medicare medication therapy management. J Am Pharm Assoc (2003). 2011;51(3):378–87.Google Scholar
  112. 112.
    Howard K, Salkeld G. Does attribute framing in discrete choice experiments influence willingness to pay? Results from a discrete choice experiment in screening for colorectal cancer. Value Health. 2009;12(2):354–63.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  113. 113.
    Howard K, et al. Preferences for CT colonography and colonoscopy as diagnostic tests for colorectal cancer: a discrete choice experiment. Value Health. 2011;14(8):1146–52.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  114. 114.
    Ijzerman MJ, van Til JA, Bridges JF. A comparison of analytic hierarchy process and conjoint analysis methods in assessing treatment alternatives for stroke rehabilitation. Patient. 2012;5(1):45–56.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  115. 115.
    Johnson FR, Ozdemir S, Phillips KA. Effects of simplifying choice tasks on estimates of taste heterogeneity in stated-choice surveys. Soc Sci Med. 2010;70(2):183–90.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  116. 116.
    Kauf TL, et al. Patients’ willingness to accept the risks and benefits of new treatments for chronic hepatitis C virus infection. Patient. 2012;5(4):265–78.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  117. 117.
    Kinter ET, et al. A comparison of two experimental design approaches in applying conjoint analysis in patient-centered outcomes research: a randomized trial. Patient. 2012;5(4):279–94.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  118. 118.
    Kiiskinen U, Suominen-Taipale AL, Cairns J. Think twice before you book? Modelling the choice of public vs private dentist in a choice experiment. Health Econ. 2010;19(6):670–82.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  119. 119.
    Koopmanschap MA, Stolk EA, Koolman X. Dear policy maker: have you made up your mind? A discrete choice experiment among policy makers and other health professionals. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2010;26(2):198–204.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  120. 120.
    Kruijshaar ME, et al. A labelled discrete choice experiment adds realism to the choices presented: preferences for surveillance tests for Barrett esophagus. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2009;9:31.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  121. 121.
    Laba TL, Brien JA, Jan S. Understanding rational non-adherence to medications. A discrete choice experiment in a community sample in Australia. BMC Fam Pract. 2012;13:61.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  122. 122.
    Lagarde M, Smith Paintain L. Evaluating health workers’ potential resistance to new interventions: a role for discrete choice experiments. PLoS ONE. 2011;6(8):e23588.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  123. 123.
    Laver K, et al. Early rehabilitation management after stroke: what do stroke patients prefer? J Rehabil Med. 2011;43(4):354–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  124. 124.
    de Bekker-Grob EW, Rose JM, Bliemer MC. A closer look at decision and analyst error by including nonlinearities in discrete choice models: implications on willingness-to-pay estimates derived from discrete choice data in healthcare. Pharmacoeconomics. 2013;31(12):1169–83.Google Scholar
  125. 125.
    Lloyd A, et al. Methylphenidate delivery mechanisms for the treatment of children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: heterogeneity in parent preferences. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2011;27(3):215–23.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  126. 126.
    Lloyd A, et al. Willingness to pay for improvements in chronic long-acting insulin therapy in individuals with type 1 or type 2 diabetes mellitus. Clin Ther. 2011;33(9):1258–67.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  127. 127.
    Manjunath R, Yang JC, Ettinger AB. Patients’ preferences for treatment outcomes of add-on antiepileptic drugs: a conjoint analysis. Epilepsy Behav. 2012;24(4):474–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  128. 128.
    Marti J. Assessing preferences for improved smoking cessation medications: a discrete choice experiment. Eur J Health Econ. 2012;13(5):533–48.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  129. 129.
    Mentzakis E, Stefanowska P, Hurley J. A discrete choice experiment investigating preferences for funding drugs used to treat orphan diseases: an exploratory study. Health Econ Policy Law. 2011;6(3):405–33.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  130. 130.
    Mohamed AF, Epstein JD, Li-McLeod JM. Patient and parent preferences for haemophilia A treatments. Haemophilia. 2011;17(2):209–14.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  131. 131.
    Morton RL, et al. Factors influencing patient choice of dialysis versus conservative care to treat end-stage kidney disease. CMAJ. 2012;184(5):E277–83.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  132. 132.
    Morton RL, et al. Dialysis modality preference of patients with CKD and family caregivers: a discrete-choice study. Am J Kidney Dis. 2012;60(1):102–11.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  133. 133.
    Muhlbacher AC, Nubling M. Analysis of physicians’ perspectives versus patients’ preferences: direct assessment and discrete choice experiments in the therapy of multiple myeloma. Eur J Health Econ. 2011;12(3):193–203.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  134. 134.
    Muhlbacher AC, et al. Preferences for treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD): a discrete choice experiment. BMC Health Serv Res. 2009;9:149.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  135. 135.
    Musters AM, et al. Women’s perspectives regarding subcutaneous injections, costs and live birth rates in IVF. Hum Reprod. 2011;26(9):2425–31.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  136. 136.
    Nayaradou M, et al. Eliciting population preferences for mass colorectal cancer screening organization. Med Decis Making. 2010;30(2):224–33.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  137. 137.
    Nieboer AP, Koolman X, Stolk EA. Preferences for long-term care services: willingness to pay estimates derived from a discrete choice experiment. Soc Sci Med. 2010;70(9):1317–25.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  138. 138.
    Ozdemir S, Johnson FR, Hauber AB. Hypothetical bias, cheap talk, and stated willingness to pay for health care. J Health Econ. 2009;28(4):894–901.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  139. 139.
    Park MH, et al. A comparison of preferences of targeted therapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma between the patient group and health care professional group in South Korea. Value Health. 2012;15(6):933–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  140. 140.
    Pavlova M, et al. The choice of obstetric care by low-risk pregnant women in the Netherlands: implications for policy and management. Health Policy. 2009;93(1):27–34.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  141. 141.
    Pereira CC, et al. Determinants of influenza vaccine purchasing decision in the US: a conjoint analysis. Vaccine. 2011;29(7):1443–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  142. 142.
    Pignone MP, et al. Conjoint analysis versus rating and ranking for values elicitation and clarification in colorectal cancer screening. J Gen Intern Med. 2012;27(1):45–50.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  143. 143.
    Regier DA, et al. Discrete choice experiment to evaluate factors that influence preferences for antibiotic prophylaxis in pediatric oncology. PLoS ONE. 2012;7(10):e47470.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  144. 144.
    Ryan M, Watson V. Comparing welfare estimates from payment card contingent valuation and discrete choice experiments. Health Econ. 2009;18(4):389–401.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  145. 145.
    Scalone L, et al. Patients’, physicians’, and pharmacists’ preferences towards coagulation factor concentrates to treat haemophilia with inhibitors: results from the COHIBA Study. Haemophilia. 2009;15(2):473–86.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  146. 146.
    Scalone L, et al. Evaluation of patients’ preferences for genital herpes treatment. Sex Transm Dis. 2011;38(9):802–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  147. 147.
    Schaarschmidt ML, et al. Patient preferences for psoriasis treatments: process characteristics can outweigh outcome attributes. Arch Dermatol. 2011;147(11):1285–94.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  148. 148.
    Schwappach DL, et al. Is less more? Patients’ preferences for drug information leaflets. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2011;20(9):987–95.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  149. 149.
    Scotland GS, et al. Women’s preferences for aspects of labor management: results from a discrete choice experiment. Birth. 2011;38(1):36–46.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  150. 150.
    Skjoldborg US, Lauridsen J, Junker P. Reliability of the discrete choice experiment at the input and output level in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Value Health. 2009;12(1):153–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  151. 151.
    Sung L, et al. Discrete choice experiment produced estimates of acceptable risks of therapeutic options in cancer patients with febrile neutropenia. J Clin Epidemiol. 2012;65(6):627–34.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  152. 152.
    Sweeting KR, et al. Patient preferences for treatment of Achilles tendon pain: results from a discrete-choice experiment. Patient. 2011;4(1):45–54.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  153. 153.
    Swinburn P, et al. Preferences for antimuscarinic therapy for overactive bladder. BJU Int. 2011;108(6):868–73.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  154. 154.
    Thrumurthy SG, et al. Discrete-choice preference comparison between patients and doctors for the surgical management of oesophagogastric cancer. Br J Surg. 2011;98(8):1124-31 (discussion 1132).Google Scholar
  155. 155.
    Tinelli M, Ryan M, Bond C. Patients’ preferences for an increased pharmacist role in the management of drug therapy. Int J Pharm Pract. 2009;17(5):275–82.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  156. 156.
    Tinelli M, et al. What determines patient preferences for treating low risk basal cell carcinoma when comparing surgery vs imiquimod? A discrete choice experiment survey from the SINS trial. BMC Dermatol. 2012;12:19.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  157. 157.
    van Dam L, et al. What determines individuals’ preferences for colorectal cancer screening programmes? A discrete choice experiment. Eur J Cancer. 2010;46(1):150–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  158. 158.
    van der Pol M, McKenzie L. Costs and benefits of tele-endoscopy clinics in a remote location. J Telemed Telecare. 2010;16(2):89–94.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  159. 159.
    van Empel IW, et al. Physicians underestimate the importance of patient-centredness to patients: a discrete choice experiment in fertility care. Hum Reprod. 2011;26(3):584–93.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  160. 160.
    Van Houtven G, et al. Eliciting benefit-risk preferences and probability-weighted utility using choice-format conjoint analysis. Med Decis Making. 2011;31(3):469–80.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  161. 161.
    Witt J, Scott A, Osborne RH. Designing choice experiments with many attributes. An application to setting priorities for orthopaedic waiting lists. Health Econ. 2009;18(6):681–96.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  162. 162.
    Wong MK, et al. Patients rank toxicity against progression free survival in second-line treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma. J Med Econ. 2012;15(6):1139–48.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  163. 163.
    Bansback N, et al. Using a discrete choice experiment to estimate health state utility values. J Health Econ. 2012;31(1):306–18.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  164. 164.
    Stolk EA, et al. Discrete choice modeling for the quantification of health states: the case of the EQ-5D. Value Health. 2010;13(8):1005–13.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  165. 165.
    Lancsar E, et al. Deriving distributional weights for QALYs through discrete choice experiments. J Health Econ. 2011;30(2):466–78.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  166. 166.
    van der Wulp I, et al. Societal preferences for standard health insurance coverage in the Netherlands: a cross-sectional study. BMJ Open. 2012;2(2):e001021.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  167. 167.
    Blaauw D, et al. Policy interventions that attract nurses to rural areas: a multicountry discrete choice experiment. Bull World Health Organ. 2010;88(5):350–6.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  168. 168.
    Grindrod KA, et al. Pharmacists’ preferences for providing patient-centered services: a discrete choice experiment to guide health policy. Ann Pharmacother. 2010;44(10):1554–64.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  169. 169.
    Gunther OH, et al. The role of monetary and nonmonetary incentives on the choice of practice establishment: a stated preference study of young physicians in Germany. Health Serv Res. 2010;45(1):212–29.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  170. 170.
    Huicho L, et al. Job preferences of nurses and midwives for taking up a rural job in Peru: a discrete choice experiment. PLoS ONE. 2012;7(12):e50315.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  171. 171.
    Kolstad JR. How to make rural jobs more attractive to health workers. Findings from a discrete choice experiment in Tanzania. Health Econ. 2011;20(2):196–211.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  172. 172.
    Miranda JJ, et al. Stated preferences of doctors for choosing a job in rural areas of Peru: a discrete choice experiment. PLoS ONE. 2012;7(12):e50567.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  173. 173.
    Rockers PC, et al. Preferences for working in rural clinics among trainee health professionals in Uganda: a discrete choice experiment. BMC Health Serv Res. 2012;12:212.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  174. 174.
    Sivey P, et al. Junior doctors’ preferences for specialty choice. J Health Econ. 2012;31(6):813–23.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  175. 175.
    Carlsen B, et al. When you can’t have the cake and eat it too: a study of medical doctors’ priorities in complex choice situations. Soc Sci Med. 2012;75(11):1964–73.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  176. 176.
    Defechereux T, et al. Health care priority setting in Norway a multicriteria decision analysis. BMC Health Serv Res. 2012;12:39.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  177. 177.
    Diederich A, Swait J, Wirsik N. Citizen participation in patient prioritization policy decisions: an empirical and experimental study on patients’ characteristics. PLoS ONE. 2012;7(5):e36824.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  178. 178.
    Kjaer T, et al. Public preferences for establishing nephrology facilities in Greenland: estimating willingness-to-pay using a discrete choice experiment. Eur J Health Econ. 2013;14(5):739–48.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  179. 179.
    Lim MK, et al. Eliciting public preference for health-care resource allocation in South Korea. Value Health. 2012;15(1 Suppl):S91–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  180. 180.
    Marsh K, et al. Prioritizing investments in public health: a multi-criteria decision analysis. J Public Health (Oxf). 2013;35(3):460–6.Google Scholar
  181. 181.
    Mirelman A, et al. Decision-making criteria among national policymakers in five countries: a discrete choice experiment eliciting relative preferences for equity and efficiency. Value Health. 2012;15(3):534–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  182. 182.
    Ng V, Sargeant JM. A quantitative and novel approach to the prioritization of zoonotic diseases in North America: a public perspective. PLoS One. 2012;7(11):e48519.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  183. 183.
    Philips H, et al. Predicting the place of out-of-hours care—a market simulation based on discrete choice analysis. Health Policy. 2012;106(3):284–90.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  184. 184.
    Promberger M, Dolan P, Marteau TM. “Pay them if it works”: discrete choice experiments on the acceptability of financial incentives to change health related behaviour. Soc Sci Med. 2012;75(12):2509–14.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  185. 185.
    Rennie L, Porteous T, Ryan M. Preferences for managing symptoms of differing severity: a discrete choice experiment. Value Health. 2012;15(8):1069–76.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  186. 186.
    Scuffham PA, et al. Health system choice: a pilot discrete-choice experiment eliciting the preferences of British and Australian citizens. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2010;8(2):89–97.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  187. 187.
    Watson V, et al. Involving the public in priority setting: a case study using discrete choice experiments. J Public Health (Oxf). 2012;34(2):253–60.Google Scholar
  188. 188.
    Watson V, et al. Managing poorly performing clinicians: health care providers’ willingness to pay for independent help. Health Policy. 2012;104(3):260–71.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  189. 189.
    Youngkong S, et al. Criteria for priority setting of HIV/AIDS interventions in Thailand: a discrete choice experiment. BMC Health Serv Res. 2010;10:197.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  190. 190.
    Arden NK, et al. How do physicians weigh benefits and risks associated with treatments in patients with osteoarthritis in the United Kingdom? J Rheumatol. 2012;39(5):1056–63.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  191. 191.
    Benjamin L, et al. Physicians’ preferences for prescribing oral and intravenous anticancer drugs: a discrete choice experiment. Eur J Cancer. 2012;48(6):912–20.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  192. 192.
    Bhatt M, et al. Current practice and tolerance for risk in performing procedural sedation and analgesia on children who have not met fasting guidelines: a Canadian survey using a stated preference discrete choice experiment. Acad Emerg Med. 2010;17(11):1207–15.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  193. 193.
    Jackman J, et al. Minding the gap: an approach to determine critical drivers in the development of point of care diagnostics. Point Care. 2012;11(2):130–9.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  194. 194.
    Mohamed AF, et al. Physicians’ stated trade-off preferences for chronic hepatitis B treatment outcomes in Germany, France, Spain, Turkey, and Italy. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2012;24(4):419–26.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  195. 195.
    Nathan H, et al. Treating patients with colon cancer liver metastasis: a nationwide analysis of therapeutic decision making. Ann Surg Oncol. 2012;19(12):3668–76.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  196. 196.
    Torbica A, Fattore G. Understanding the impact of economic evidence on clinical decision making: a discrete choice experiment in cardiology. Soc Sci Med. 2010;70(10):1536–43.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  197. 197.
    Tsung-Tai C, Heng-Chaing C, Lao-Nga M. Using discrete choice experiments to elicit doctors’ preferences for report card design of diabetes care in Taiwan—a pilot study. J Eval Clin Pract. 2010;16:14–20.Google Scholar
  198. 198.
    van Helvoort-Postulart D, et al. Discrete choice experiments for complex health-care decisions: does hierarchical information integration offer a solution? Health Econ. 2009;18(8):903–20.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  199. 199.
    van Helvoort-Postulart D, van der Weijden T. Investigating the complementary value of discrete choice experiments for the evaluation of barriers and facilitators in implementation research: a questionnaire survey. Implement Sci. 2009;4.Google Scholar
  200. 200.
    Wyatt JC, Batley RP, Keen J. GP preferences for information systems: conjoint analysis of speed, reliability, access and users. J Eval Clin Pract. 2010;16(5):911–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  201. 201.
    Pedersen LB, et al. General practitioners’ preferences for the organisation of primary care: a discrete choice experiment. Health Policy. 2012;106(3):246–56.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  202. 202.
    Al Hamarneh YN, et al. Public perceptions of coronary events risk factors: a discrete choice experiment. BMJ Open. 2012;2(5).Google Scholar
  203. 203.
    Bech M, Kjaer T, Lauridsen J. Does the number of choice sets matter? Results from a web survey applying a discrete choice experiment. Health Econ. 2011;20(3):273–86.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  204. 204.
    Cunningham CE, et al. Preferences for evidence-based practice dissemination in addiction agencies serving women: a discrete-choice conjoint experiment. Addiction. 2012;107(8):1512–24.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  205. 205.
    Fegert JM, et al. Assessment of parents’ preferences for the treatment of school-age children with ADHD: a discrete choice experiment. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2011;11(3):245–52.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  206. 206.
    Oteng B, Marra F, Another A. Evaluating societal preferences for human papillomavirus vaccine and cervical smear test screening programme. Sex Transm Infect. 2011;87(1):52–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  207. 207.
    Regier DA, et al. Valuing the benefit of diagnostic testing for genetic causes of idiopathic developmental disability: willingness to pay from families of affected children. Clin Genet. 2009;75(6):514–21.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  208. 208.
    Robyn PJ, et al. Health worker preferences for community-based health insurance payment mechanisms: a discrete choice experiment. BMC Health Serv Res. 2012;12:159.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  209. 209.
    Scasny M, Alberini A. Valuation of mortality risk attributable to climate change: investigating the effect of survey administration modes on a VSL. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2012;9(12):4760–81.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  210. 210.
    Schellings R, et al. The development of quality indicators in mental healthcare: a discrete choice experiment. BMC Psychiatry. 2012;12:103.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  211. 211.
    Tong BC, et al. Weighting composite endpoints in clinical trials: essential evidence for the heart team. Ann Thorac Surg. 2012;94(6):1908–13.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  212. 212.
    Tonin S, Alberini A, Turvani M. The value of reducing cancer risks at contaminated sites: are more knowledgeable people willing to pay more? Risk Anal. 2012;32(7):1157–82.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  213. 213.
    Vroomen J, Zweifel P. Preferences for health insurance and health status: does it matter whether you are Dutch or German? Eur J Health Econ. 2011;12(1):87–95.Google Scholar
  214. 214.
    Whitty JA, Scuffham PA, Rundle-Thiele SR. Public and decision maker stated preferences for pharmaceutical subsidy decisions: a pilot study. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2011;9(2):73–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  215. 215.
    Idkowiak J, et al. Premature adrenarche: novel lessons from early onset androgen excess. Eur J Endocrinol. 2011;165(2):189–207.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  216. 216.
    Hole AR. Modelling heterogeneity in patients’ preferences for the attributes of a general practitioner appointment. J Health Econ. 2008;27(4):1078–94.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  217. 217.
    Mark TL, Swait J. Using stated preference modeling to forecast the effect of medication attributes on prescriptions of alcoholism medications. Value Health. 2003;6(4):474–82.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  218. 218.
    Lancsar E, Louviere J. Deleting ‘irrational’ responses from discrete choice experiments: a case of investigating or imposing preferences? Health Econ. 2006;15(8):797–811.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  219. 219.
    Ryan M. Using conjoint analysis to take account of patient preferences and go beyond health outcomes: an application to in vitro fertilisation. Soc Sci Med. 1999;48(4):535–46.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  220. 220.
    Ryan M, et al. Using discrete choice experiments to estimate a preference-based measure of outcome—an application to social care for older people. J Health Econ. 2006;25(5):927–44.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  221. 221.
    Burr JM, et al. Developing a preference-based Glaucoma Utility Index using a discrete choice experiment. Optom Vis Sci. 2007;84(8):797–808.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  222. 222.
    Slothuus Skjoldborg U, Gyrd-Hansen D. Conjoint analysis. The cost variable: an Achilles’ heel? Health Econ. 2003;12(6):479–91.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  223. 223.
    Gyrd-Hansen D, Skjoldborg US. The price proxy in discrete choice experiments: Issues of relevance for future research. In: Ryan M, Gerard K, Amaya-Amaya M, editors. Using discrete choice experiments to value health and health care; 2008. p. 175–193.Google Scholar
  224. 224.
    Louviere JJ, Lancsar E. Choice experiments in health: the good, the bad, the ugly and toward a brighter future. Health Econ Policy Law. 2009;4(Pt 4):527–46.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  225. 225.
    Mark TL, Swait J. Using stated preference and revealed preference modeling to evaluate prescribing decisions. Health Econ. 2004;13(6):563–73.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  226. 226.
    Johnson FR, et al. How does cost matter in health-care discrete-choice experiments? Health Econ. 2011;20(3):323–30.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  227. 227.
    Ratcliffe J, et al. Patients’ preferences for characteristics associated with treatments for osteoarthritis. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2004;43(3):337–45.Google Scholar
  228. 228.
    Deal K. Segmenting patients and physicians using preferences from discrete choice experiments. Patient. 2014;7(1):5–21.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  229. 229.
    Miguel FS, Ryan M, Amaya-Amaya M. ‘Irrational’ stated preferences: a quantitative and qualitative investigation. Health Econ. 2005;14(3):307–22.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael D. Clark
    • 1
  • Domino Determann
    • 2
    • 3
  • Stavros Petrou
    • 5
  • Domenico Moro
    • 4
  • Esther W. de Bekker-Grob
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of EconomicsUniversity of WarwickCoventryUK
  2. 2.Department of Public HealthErasmus MC, University Medical Centre RotterdamRotterdamThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Centre for Prevention and Health Services ResearchNational Institute of Public Health and the Environment (RIVM)BilthovenThe Netherlands
  4. 4.Department of Business and MarketingBirmingham City Business School, Birmingham City UniversityBirminghamUK
  5. 5.Warwick Medical School (WMS)University of WarwickCoventryUK

Personalised recommendations