Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

What’s Good and Bad About Contraceptive Products?

A Best-Worst Attribute Experiment Comparing the Values of Women Consumers and GPs

  • Original Research Article
  • Published:
PharmacoEconomics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Table I
Fig. 1
Table II
Table III
Table IV
Table V
Table VI
Table VII
Table VIII

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Yusuf F, Siedlecky S. Patterns of contraceptive use in Australia: analysis of the 2001 national health survey. J Biosoc Sci 2007; 39(5): 735–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Gray E, McDonald P. Using a reproductive life course approach to understand contraceptive method use in Australia. J Biosoc Sci 2010; 42(1): 43–57

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Novák A, de la Loge C, Abetz L, et al. The combined contraceptive vaginal ring, Nuvaring: an international study of user acceptability. Contraception 2002; 67: 187–94

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Fiebig DG, Knox S, Viney R, et al. Preferences for new and existing contraceptive products. Health Econ 2011; 20: 35–52

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Flynn TN, Louviere JJ, Peters TJ, et al. Best-worst scaling: what it can do for health care research and how to do it. J Health Econ 2007; 26(1): 171–89

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Louviere JJ, Islam T. A comparison of importance weights and willingness-to-pay measures derived from choice-based conjoint, constant sum scales and best-worst scaling. J Bus Res 2008; 61: 903–11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Marley AAJ, Louviere JJ. Some probabilistic models of best, worst, and best-worst choices. J Math Psychol 2005; 49: 464–80

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Marley AAJ, Flynn TN, Louviere JJ. Probabilistic models of set-dependent and attribute level best-worst choices. J Math Psychol 2008; 52: 281–96

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Hall J, Fiebig DG, King MT, et al. What influences participation in genetic carrier testing? Results from a discrete choice experiment. J Health Econ 2006; 25(3): 520–37

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Lancsar E, Louviere J, Flynn T. Several methods to investigate relative attribute impact in stated preference experiments. Soc Sci Med 2007; 64(8): 1738–53

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Fiebig DG, Haas M, Hossain I, et al. Decisions about Pap tests: what influences women and providers? Soc Sci Med 2009; 68(10): 1766–74

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Coast J, Salisbury C, de Berker D, et al. Preferences for aspects of a dermatology consultation. Br J Dermatol 2006; 155(2): 387–92

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Coast J, Flynn TN, Natarajan L, et al. Valuing the ICECAP capability index for older people. Soc Sci Med 2008; 67(5): 874–82

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Finn A, Louviere JJ. Determining the appropriate response to evidence of public concern: the case of food safety. J Public Policy Mark 1992; 11(2): 12–25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Street DJ, Burgess L. The construction of optimal stated choice experiments: theory and methods. Hoboken (NJ): Wiley, 2007

    Book  Google Scholar 

  16. Survey Sampling International [online]. Available from URL: http://www.surveysampling.com/en/forms/global-panel-book [Accessed 2009 Feb 15]

  17. Britt H, Miller GC, Charles J, et al. General practice activity in Australia 2007–2008. Canberra: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2008

    Google Scholar 

  18. Australian Bureau of Statistics. Australian historical population statistics. Canberra (ACT): ABS, 2006

    Google Scholar 

  19. Gilliam M, Holmquist S, Berlin A. Factors associated with willingness to use the contraceptive vaginal ring. Contraception 2007; 76: 30–4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Creinin MD, Meyn LA, Borgatta L, et al. Multicenter comparison of the contraceptive ring and patch: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 2008; 111 (2 Pt 1): 267–77

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. de Bekker-Grob EW, Essink-Bot ML, Meerding WJ, et al. Preferences of GPs and patients for preventive osteoporosis drug treatment: a discrete-choice experiment. Pharmacoeconomics 2009; 27(3): 211–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Ratcliffe J, Couzner L, Flynn T, et al. Valuing Child Health Utility 9D health states with a young adolescent sample: a feasibility study to compare best-worst scaling discrete-choice experiment, standard gamble and time trade-off methods. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 2011; 9(1): 15–27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Potoglou D, Burge P, Flynn T, et al. Best-worst scaling vs. discrete choice experiments: an empirical comparison using social care data. Soc Sci Med 2011; 72(10): 1717–27

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was undertaken at the Centre for Health Economics Research and Evaluation, University of Technology Sydney.

This project was funded by the Australian Research Council (ARC) as an ARC linkage grant, a partnership grant between the University of Technology Sydney (Centre for Health Economics Research and Evaluation) and the following industry partners: Family Planning NSW, Organon Australia Pty Ltd, Schering Pty Ltd, and Janssen-Cilag Pty Ltd.

Authors E. Weisberg and D. Bateson are employed by Family Planning NSW and were involved in the study design and interpretation of the results. Family Planning NSW has received grants from Bayer HealthCare and MSD for training programmes and also provides independent expert advice to MSD, Pfizer and Bayer HealthCare on contraception. Family Planning NSW did not provide any financial support for the study. The other funding organisations were not involved in the design or conduct of the study nor the analysis or interpretation of the results. The authors S.A. Knox, R.C. Viney, M.R. Haas, D.J. Street and D.G. Fiebig have no conflicts of interest. The authors would like to thank Clarissa House-Watson for her assistance in recruiting the GPs into the study.

Author contributions: S.A. Knox researched the chosen method, undertook construction of the design and simulation testing, supervised online set-up of the experiment and recruitment, undertook analysis, contributed to the literature review and lead the writing of the manuscript.

R.C. Viney contributed to the conception of the study and the planning of focus groups, and was involved in the choice of task, selecting attributes and levels, the recruitment of GPs, the interpretation of results, and writing and editing the manuscript

M.R. Haas contributed to the conception of the study, the planning of focus groups, the choice of task, selecting attributes and levels, the interpretation of results, and writing and editing the manuscript.

D.G. Fiebig contributed to the choice of task, gave advice on analysis and interpretation of the results, and contributed to writing and editing the manuscript.

D.J. Street was involved in the choice of task, undertook construction of design and supervised simulation testing, and contributed to writing and editing the manuscript.

E. Weisberg contributed to the conception of the study, the planning and running of focus groups, the selection of attributes and levels, recruitment of GPs and writing the manuscript.

D. Bateson contributed to the conception of the study, the selection of attributes and levels, the recruitment of GPs and writing the manuscript.

S.A. Knox acts as guarantor for the overall content of this paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Health Economics Research and Evaluation, University of Technology Sydney, Level 4, 645 Harris Street, Ultimo, Sydney, NSW, 2007, Australia

    Stephanie A. Knox (Research Fellow), Rosalie C. Viney & Marion R. Haas

  2. School of Mathematical Sciences, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia

    Deborah J. Street

  3. Australian School of Business, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia

    Denzil G. Fiebig

  4. Family Planning NSW, Sydney Centre for Reproductive Health Research, Sydney, NSW, Australia

    Edith Weisberg & Deborah Bateson

Authors
  1. Stephanie A. Knox
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rosalie C. Viney
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Deborah J. Street
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Marion R. Haas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Denzil G. Fiebig
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Edith Weisberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Deborah Bateson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stephanie A. Knox.

Electronic supplementary material

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Knox, S.A., Viney, R.C., Street, D.J. et al. What’s Good and Bad About Contraceptive Products?. PharmacoEconomics 30, 1187–1202 (2012). https://doi.org/10.2165/11598040-000000000-00000

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/11598040-000000000-00000

Keywords

Search

Navigation