Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorWhitty, Jennifer A
dc.contributor.authorRatcliffe, Julie
dc.contributor.authorChen, Gang
dc.contributor.authorScuffham, Paul A
dc.date.accessioned2017-05-03T14:21:59Z
dc.date.available2017-05-03T14:21:59Z
dc.date.issued2014
dc.identifier.issn0272-989X
dc.identifier.doi10.1177/0272989X14526640
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10072/65456
dc.description.abstractBackground. Ethical, economic, political, and legitimacy arguments support the consideration of public preferences in health technology decision making. The objective was to assess public preferences for funding new health technologies and to compare a profile case best-worst scaling (BWS) and traditional discrete choice experiment (DCE) method. Methods. An online survey consisting of a DCE and BWS task was completed by 930 adults recruited via an Internet panel. Respondents traded between 7 technology attributes. Participation quotas broadly reflected the population of Queensland, Australia, by gender and age. Choice data were analyzed using a generalized multinomial logit model. Results. The findings from both the BWS and DCE were generally consistent in that respondents exhibited stronger preferences for technologies offering prevention or early diagnosis over other benefit types. Respondents also prioritized technologies that benefit younger people, larger numbers of people, those in rural areas, or indigenous Australians; that provide value for money; that have no available alternative; or that upgrade an existing technology. However, the relative preference weights and consequent preference orderings differed between the DCE and BWS models. Further, poor correlation between the DCE and BWS weights was observed. While only a minority of respondents reported difficulty completing either task (22.2% DCE, 31.9% BWS), the majority (72.6%) preferred the DCE over BWS task. Conclusions. This study provides reassurance that many criteria routinely used for technology decision making are considered to be relevant by the public. The findings clearly indicate the perceived importance of prevention and early diagnosis. The dissimilarity observed between DCE and profile case BWS weights is contrary to the findings of previous comparisons and raises uncertainty regarding the comparative merits of these stated preference methods in a priority-setting context.
dc.description.peerreviewedYes
dc.description.publicationstatusYes
dc.languageEnglish
dc.language.isoeng
dc.publisherSage
dc.publisher.placeUnited States
dc.relation.ispartofstudentpublicationN
dc.relation.ispartofpagefrom638
dc.relation.ispartofpageto654
dc.relation.ispartofissue5
dc.relation.ispartofjournalMedical Decision Making
dc.relation.ispartofvolume34
dc.rights.retentionY
dc.subject.fieldofresearchApplied economics
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode3801
dc.titleAustralian Public Preferences for the Funding of New Health Technologies: A Comparison of Discrete Choice and Profile Case Best Worst Scaling Methods.
dc.typeJournal article
dc.type.descriptionC1 - Articles
dc.type.codeC - Journal Articles
gro.facultyGriffith Health, School of Medicine
gro.date.issued2015-02-04T04:25:50Z
gro.hasfulltextNo Full Text
gro.griffith.authorScuffham, Paul A.


Files in this item

FilesSizeFormatView

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

  • Journal articles
    Contains articles published by Griffith authors in scholarly journals.

Show simple item record