Discrete choice experiments in health care

NICE should consider using them for patient centred evaluations of technologies In many publicly provided healthcare systems, limited resources coupled with unlimited demand result in decisions having to be made about the efficient allocation of scarce resources. This raises questions of how services should be provided (for example, how should patients with cancer be treated? should central clinics, which reduce waiting time but increase travel time for patients, be introduced?) through to the optimal provision and the financing of health care (for example, how should we pay doctors to encourage them to work in remote and rural areas? what would encourage nurses to return to the labour market?). Given the lack of a market for health care, economics techniques inform such decisions.1 One approach adopted by and further developed in health economics over the past decade is discrete choice experiments.2 3 In this issue Sculpher et al use this approach to consider patients' preferences in the treatment of prostate cancer (p 382).4 …

[1]  A. Scott,et al.  What do hospital consultants value about their jobs? A discrete choice experiment , 2003, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[2]  M. Ryan,et al.  Using discrete choice modelling in priority setting: an application to clinical service developments. , 2000, Social science & medicine.

[3]  G. Mooney Key issues in health economics , 1994 .

[4]  M Ryan,et al.  Using conjoint analysis to elicit preferences for health care , 2000, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[5]  Mandy Ryan,et al.  Using discrete choice experiments to value health care programmes: current practice and future research reflections. , 2003, Applied health economics and health policy.

[6]  M. Ryan,et al.  Methodological issues in the monetary valuation of benefits in healthcare , 2003, Expert review of pharmacoeconomics & outcomes research.

[7]  Emily Lancsar,et al.  Discrete choice experiments to measure consumer preferences for health and healthcare , 2002, Expert review of pharmacoeconomics & outcomes research.

[8]  D. Fryback,et al.  Understanding differences between self-ratings and population ratings for health in the EuroQOL , 2003, Quality of Life Research.

[9]  M. Brazzelli,et al.  A systematic review of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty for treatment of hip disease. , 2002, Health technology assessment.

[10]  M Ryan,et al.  Using conjoint analysis to assess women's preferences for miscarriage management. , 1997, Health economics.