Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-b95js Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-15T15:38:48.378Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

DETERMINATION OF INDIVIDUAL PREFERENCE: WHY, HOW AND ALTERNATIVES

Part of: Bespoke shallow archive Weizmann

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 October 2009

DALJIT SAHOTA ,
TAK YEUNG LEUNG  and
TZE KIN LAU
DALJIT SAHOTA*
Affiliation:
Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, The Chinese University of Hong Kong. Prince of Wales Hospital, Shatin, Hong Kong SAR, China
TAK YEUNG LEUNG
Affiliation:
Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, The Chinese University of Hong Kong. Prince of Wales Hospital, Shatin, Hong Kong SAR, China
TZE KIN LAU
Affiliation:
Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, The Chinese University of Hong Kong. Prince of Wales Hospital, Shatin, Hong Kong SAR, China
*
Daljit Sahota, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Prince of Wales Hospital, Shatin, Hong Kong SAR, China.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The determination of individual preference or choice for a new product, and satisfaction with an existing product or service are routinely performed by advertising and market survey companies worldwide. The data collected, once analysed, has allowed companies to determine the attributes consumers desire within their, or a competitor's, existing products and services. In this way they are able to identify possible ways to improve their products and services and thus to use their own resources efficiently and effectively, thereby maximising their returns for the expenditure incurred.

Type
Research Article
Information
Fetal and Maternal Medicine Review , Volume 20 , Issue 4 , November 2009 , pp. 301 - 317
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1Cattlin, P, Wittlink, D. Commerical use of conjoint analysis: as survey. J Marketing 1982; 46: 44–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2Louviere, J, Woodworth, G. Design and analysis of simulated consumer choice or allocation experiments: an approach based on aggregrate data. J Mark Res 1983; 20: 350–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3Ryan, M, Farrar, S. Using conjoint analysis to elicit preferences for health care. Br Med J 2000; 320: 1530–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4Ryan, M, Scott, DA, Reeves, C, Bate, A, van Teijlingen, ER, Russell, EM et al. Eliciting public preferences for healthcare: a systematic review of techniques. Health Technol Assess 2001; 5: 1—186.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5SamplePower, SPSS Inc, Chicago, Ilinois. USAGoogle Scholar
6Power and Sample Size Calculation. Dupont WD, Plummer WD.http://biostat.mc.vanderbilt.edu/twiki/bin/view/Main/PowerSampleSize. Accessed on 1 Feb 2009.Google Scholar
7Stats Tool Box, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, The Chinese University of Hong Kong. http://department.obg.cuhk.edu.hk/researchsupport/statstesthome.asp. Accessed on 1 Feb 2009.Google Scholar
8von Neumann, J, Morgenstern, O. Theory of Games and Behaviour. John Wiley, New York, 1953.Google Scholar
9Torrance, GW. Measurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal: a review. J Health Econ 1986; 5: 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10Gafni, A. The standard gamble method: What is being measured and how it is interpreted. Health Serv Res 1994; 29: 207—24Google ScholarPubMed
11Chan, YM, Leung, TN, Leung, TY, Fung, TY, Chan, LW, Lau, TK. The utility assessment of Chinese pregnant women towards the birth of a baby with Down syndrome compared to a procedure-related miscarriage. Prenat Diagn 2006; 6: 819–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12Chan, YM, Sahota, DS, Chan, OK, Leung, TY, Lau, TK. Miscarriage after invasive prenatal diagnostic procedures: how much risk our pregnant women are willing to take? Prenat Diagn 2009; 29: 870–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13Lenert, L, Kaplan, RM. Validity and interpretation of preference based measures of health related quality of life. Med Care 2000; 38: II 138–50.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14Woloshin, S, Schwartz, LM, Moncur, M, Gabriel, S, Tosteson, AN. Assessing values for health: numeracy matters. Med Decis Making 2001; 21: 382–90CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15Pauker, SP, Pauker, SG. Prenatal Diagnosis: A Directive Approach to Genetic Counseling Using Decision Analysis. Yale J Biol Med 1977; 50: 275–89.Google ScholarPubMed
16Pauker, SP, Pauker, SG. The amniocentesis decision: ten years of decision analytic experience. Birth Defects Orig Artic Ser 1987; 23: 151–69.Google ScholarPubMed
17Kuppermann, M, Nease, RF, Learman, LA, Gates, E, Blumberg, B, Washington, AE. Procedure-related miscarriages and Down syndrome-affected births: implications for prenatal testing based on women's preferences. Obstet Gynecol 2000; 96: 511–16.Google ScholarPubMed
18Deverill, M, Robson, S. Women's preference in screening for Down syndrome. Prenat Diagn 2006; 9: 837–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19Grobman, WA, Dooley, SL, Welshman, EE, Pergament, E, Calhoun, EA. Preference assessment of prenatal diagnosis for Down syndrome: Is 35 years a rational cutoff? Prenat Diagn 2002; 22: 1195–1200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20Caughey, AB, Washington, AE, Gildengorin, V, Kuppermann, M. Assessment of demand for prenatal diagnostic testing using willingness to pay. Obstet Gynecol 2004; 103: 539–45CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21Saigal, S, Stoskopf, BL, Feeny, D, Furlong, W, Burrows, E, Rosenbaum, PL, Hoult, L. Differences in preferences for neonatal outcomes among health care professionals, parents, and adolescents. JAMA 1999; 281: 1991—997.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22Vandenbussche, FP, De Jong-Potjer, LC, Stiggelbout, AM, Le Cessie, S, Keirse, MJ. Differences in the valuation of birth outcomes among pregnant women, mothers, and obstetricians. Birth 1999; 26: 178—183.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
23Pham, CT, Crowther, CA. Birth outcomes: utility values that postnatal women, midwives and medical staff express. BJOG 2003; 110: 121–27.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
24Lancaster, KJ. New approach to consumer theory. J Polit Econ 1966; 74: 132–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
25Lancaster, KJ. In: Lancaster, K. (ed). Modern Consumer Theory. Edward Elgar, Aldershot, England. 1991. 122–33.Google Scholar
26Ben-Akiva, M, Lerman, S. Discrete choice analysis: Theory and application to travel demand. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. 1985; 1–4.Google Scholar
27Krantz, DH, Tverksy, A. Conjoint measurement analysis of composition rules in psychology. Psychology Rev 1971; 78: 151–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
28Luce, RD, Tukey, JW. Simultaneous conjoint measurement: a new type of fundamental measurement. J Math Psychol 1964; 1: 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
29Anderson, NH. Foundations of information integration theory. Academic Press, New York USA. 1981.Google Scholar
30Bishop, YM, Fienberg, SW, Holland, PW. Discrete multivariate analysis: Theory and applications. Springer Science and Business Media, New York, USA 2008; 257–73.Google Scholar
31Propper, C. Contingent valuation of time spent on NHS waiting lists. Econ J 1990; 100: 193–99.Google Scholar
32Ratchford, BT. The new economic theory of consumer behaviour: an interpretive essay. J Consum Res 1975; 2: 65–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
33Louviere, JJ, Henscher, DA, Swait, J. Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and application in marketing, transportation and environmental valuation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 2000; 283–352.Google Scholar
34Lancsar, E, Savage, E. Deriving welfare measures from discrete choice experiments: inconsistency between current methods and random utility and welfare theory. Health Econ 2004; 13: 901–907.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
35Ryan, M. Deriving welfare measures in discrete choice experiments: a comment to Lancsar and Savage (I). Health Econ 2004; 13: 909–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
36Lancsar, E, Louviere, J. Conducting Discrete Choice Experiments to Inform Healthcare Decision Making: A User's Guide. PharmacoEconomics 2008; 26: 661–77.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
37Hundley, V, Ryan, M, Graham, W. Assessing women's preferences for intrapartum care. Birth 2001; 28: 254–263.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
38Petrou, S, Henderson, J. Preference-based approaches to measuring the benefits of perinatal care. Birth 2003; 30: 217–26.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
39Pitchforth, E, Watson, V, Tucker, J, Ryan, M, van Teijlingen, E, Farmer, J, Ireland, J, Thomson, E, Kiger, A, Bryers, H. Models of intrapartum care and women's trade-offs in remote and rural Scotland: a mixed-methods study. BJOG 2008; 115: 560–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
40Miedzybrodzka, Z, Semper, J, Shackley, P, Abdalla, M, Donaldson, C. Stepwise or couple antenatal carrier screening for cystic fibrosis?: women's preferences and willingness to pay. J Med Genet 1995; 32: 282–83.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
41Donaldson, C, Shakley, P, Abdalla, M, Miedzybrodzka, Z. Willingness to pay for anternatal carrier screening for cystic fibrosis. Health Econ 1995; 4: 439–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
42Lewis, SM, Cullinane, FM, Carlin, JB, Halliday, JL. Women's and health professionals’ preferences for prenatal testing for Down syndrome in Australia. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2006; 46: 205–11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
43Lewis, SM, Cullinane, FN, Bishop, AJ, Chitty, LS, Marteau, TM, Halliday, JL. A comparison of Australian and UK obstetricians’ and midwives’ preferences for screening tests for Down syndrome. Prenat Diagn 2006; 26: 60–66.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
44Ryan, M, Diack, J, Watson, V, Smith, N. Rapid prenatal diagnostic testing for Down syndrome only or longer wait for full karyotype: the views of pregnant women. Prenat Diagn 2005; 25: 1206–11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
45Watson, V, Ryan, M, Watson, E. Valuing experience factors in the provision of chlamydia screening: an application to women attending the family planning clinic. Value Health 2009; 12: 621–23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
46Ryan, M, Hughes, J. Using conjoint analysis to assess women's preferences for miscarriage management. Health Econ 1997; 6: 261–73.3.0.CO;2-N>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
47Ryan, 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: 535–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
48Pearmain, D, Swanson, J, Kroes, E, Bradley, M. Stated preference techniques: a guide to practice. The Hague: Steer Davis Gleave and Hague Consulting Group, 1991.Google Scholar