SpringerLink
Log in

Preferences for Health Interventions: Improving Uptake, Adherence, and Efficiency

  • Commentary
  • Published:
The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (Germany)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

References

  1. Tengs TO, et al. Five-hundred life-saving interventions and their cost-effectiveness. Risk Anal. 1995;15(3):369–90.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Craig BM, et al. Health preference research: an overview. Patient. 2017. doi:10.1007/s40271-017-0253-9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Mühlbacher A, Johnson FR. Choice experiments to quantify preferences for health and healthcare: state of the practice. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2016;14(3):253–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Whitty JA, Fraenkel L, Saigal CS, Groothuis-Oudshoorn CGM, Regier DA, Marshall DA. Assessment of individual patient preferences to inform clinical practice. Patient. 2017. doi:10.1007/s40271-017-0254-8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Wallander L. 25 years of factorial surveys in sociology: a review. Soc Sci Res. 2009;38(3):505–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. van Helvoort-Postulart D, van der Weijden T, Dellaert B, de Kok M, von Meyenfeldt MF, Dirksen CD. Investigating the complementary value of discrete choice experiments for the evaluation of barriers and facilitators in implementation research: a questionnaire survey. Implement Sci. 2009;4:10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Terris-Prestholt F, Quaife M, Vickerman P. Parameterising user uptake in economic evaluations: the role of discrete choice experiments. Health Econ. 2016;25(Suppl. 1):116–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Hainmueller J, Hangartner D, Yamamoto T. Validating vignette and conjoint survey experiments against real-world behavior. PNAS. 2015;112(8):2395–400.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Lambooij MS, Harmsen IA, Veldwijk J, de Melker H, Mollema L, van Weert Y, de Wit GA. Consistency between stated and revealed preferences: a discrete choice experiment and a behavioural experiment on vaccination behaviour compared. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2015;15:19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Salampessy BH, Veldwijk J, Schuit AJ, van den Brekel-Dijkstra K, Neslo EJ, de Wit GA, Lambooij MS. The predictive value of discrete choice experiments in public health: an exploratory application. Patient. 2015;8(6):521–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge the administrative support for the preparation of this article from the International Academy of Health Preference Research (IAHPR). Drs. Mühlbacher and Brown serve on the Board of the IAHPR Foundation. Dr. Mühlbacher is also a founding co-chair of the Health Preference Research special interest group at the International Society of Quality of Life Research and co-chair of the Stated Preference Research in the European Union Working Group of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Health Services Policy and Management, Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, 915 Greene Street, Discovery Bldg., Ste. 358, Columbia, SC, 29208, USA

    Jan Ostermann

  2. Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, USA

    Derek S. Brown

  3. Section of Health Technology Assessment and Erasmus Choice Modelling Centre, Institute of Health Policy and Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

    Esther W. de Bekker-Grob

  4. Section of Medical Decision Making and Erasmus Choice Modelling Centre, Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

    Esther W. de Bekker-Grob

  5. Professur Gesundheitsökonomie und Medizinmanagement, Hochschule Neubrandenburg, Neubrandenburg, Germany

    Axel C. Mühlbacher

  6. Center for Clinical and Genetic Economics, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA

    Shelby D. Reed

  7. Center for Health Policy and Inequalities Research, Duke Global Health Institute, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA

    Jan Ostermann & Axel C. Mühlbacher

Authors
  1. Jan Ostermann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Derek S. Brown
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Esther W. de Bekker-Grob
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Axel C. Mühlbacher
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Shelby D. Reed
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jan Ostermann.

Ethics declarations

Funding

No funding was received for the preparation of this article.

Conflict of interest

Jan Ostermann, Derek S. Brown, Esther W. de Bekker-Grob, Axel C. Mühlbacher, and Shelby D. Reed have no conflicts of interest directly relevant to the content of this article.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ostermann, J., Brown, D.S., de Bekker-Grob, E.W. et al. Preferences for Health Interventions: Improving Uptake, Adherence, and Efficiency. Patient 10, 511–514 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-017-0251-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-017-0251-y

Search

Navigation