scholarly journals Valuing ecosystem services from Lake Kasumigaura using a discrete choice experiment.

2020 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
pp. 235-243
Author(s):  
Satoshi KOUHUKU ◽  
Takahiro KUBO ◽  
Tatsumi KITAMURA ◽  
Shin-ichiro S. MATSUZAKI ◽  
Shun-ichi MATSUMOTO ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Ecosystem Services ◽  
Discrete Choice Experiment ◽  
Discrete Choice ◽  
Choice Experiment ◽  
Lake Kasumigaura

Valuing ecosystem services across water bodies: Results from a discrete choice experiment

2014 ◽  
Vol 7 ◽  
pp. 89-97 ◽  
Author(s):  
Edel Doherty ◽  
Geraldine Murphy ◽  
Stephen Hynes ◽  
Cathal Buckley
Keyword(s):  
Ecosystem Services ◽  
Discrete Choice Experiment ◽  
Discrete Choice ◽  
Choice Experiment ◽  
Water Bodies

The essential ingredients of research supervision: A discrete-choice experiment.

2019 ◽  
Vol 111 (7) ◽  
pp. 1243-1260 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alex Roach ◽  
Bruce K. Christensen ◽  
Elizabeth Rieger
Keyword(s):  
Discrete Choice Experiment ◽  
Discrete Choice ◽  
Choice Experiment ◽  
Research Supervision

INDIVIDUALS' PREFERENCES FOR ESOPHAGEAL CANCER SCREENING STRATEGIES: A DISCRETE CHOICE EXPERIMENT

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Y Peters ◽  
E van Grinsven ◽  
M van de Haterd ◽  
D van Lankveld ◽  
J Verbakel ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Esophageal Cancer ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Discrete Choice Experiment ◽  
Discrete Choice ◽  
Choice Experiment ◽  
Screening Strategies

Preferences for antiviral therapy of chronic hepatitis C: a discrete choice experiment

2016 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
pp. 155-165 ◽  
Author(s):  
Axel C. Mühlbacher ◽  
John F. P. Bridges ◽  
Susanne Bethge ◽  
Ch.-Markos Dintsios ◽  
Anja Schwalm ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Chronic Hepatitis ◽  
Hepatitis C ◽  
Antiviral Therapy ◽  
Chronic Hepatitis C ◽  
Discrete Choice Experiment ◽  
Discrete Choice ◽  
Choice Experiment

Patient preferences for specialist outpatient video consultations: A discrete choice experiment

2021 ◽  
pp. 1357633X2110228
Author(s):  
Centaine L Snoswell ◽  
Anthony C Smith ◽  
Matthew Page ◽  
Liam J Caffery
Keyword(s):  
General Practitioner ◽  
Discrete Choice Experiment ◽  
Discrete Choice ◽  
Patient Preferences ◽  
Choice Experiment ◽  
Healthcare Delivery ◽  
General Practitioner Practice ◽  
Specialist Care ◽  
Time Away ◽  
Out Of Pocket Costs

Introduction Telehealth has been shown to improve access to care, reduce personal expenses and reduce the need for travel. Despite these benefits, patients may be less inclined to seek a telehealth service, if they consider it inferior to an in-person encounter. The aims of this study were to identify patient preferences for attributes of a healthcare service and to quantify the value of these attributes. Methods We surveyed patients who had taken an outpatient telehealth consult in the previous year using a survey that included a discrete choice experiment. We investigated patient preferences for attributes of healthcare delivery and their willingness to pay for out-of-pocket costs. Results Patients ( n = 62) preferred to have a consultation, regardless of type, than no consultation at all. Patients preferred healthcare services with lower out-of-pocket costs, higher levels of perceived benefit and less time away from usual activities ( p < 0.008). Most patients preferred specialist care over in-person general practitioner care. Their order of preference to obtain specialist care was a videoconsultation into the patient’s local general practitioner practice or hospital ( p < 0.003), a videoconsultation into the home, and finally travelling for in-person appointment. Patients were willing to pay out-of-pocket costs for attributes they valued: to be seen by a specialist over videoconference ($129) and to reduce time away from usual activities ($160). Conclusion Patients value specialist care, lower out-of-pocket costs and less time away from usual activities. Telehealth is more likely than in-person care to cater to these preferences in many instances.

scholarly journals Understanding what women want: eliciting preference for delivery health facility in a rural subcounty in Kenya, a discrete choice experiment

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (12) ◽  
pp. e038865
Author(s):  
Jackline Oluoch-Aridi ◽  
Mary B Adam ◽  
Francis Wafula ◽  
Gilbert Kokwaro
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Care ◽  
Health Facility ◽  
Discrete Choice Experiment ◽  
Discrete Choice ◽  
Choice Experiment ◽  
Home Delivery ◽  
Process Indicator ◽  
Opt Out ◽  
Women’S Preferences

ObjectiveTo identify what women want in a delivery health facility and how they rank the attributes that influence the choice of a place of delivery.DesignA discrete choice experiment (DCE) was conducted to elicit rural women’s preferences for choice of delivery health facility. Data were analysed using a conditional logit model to evaluate the relative importance of the selected attributes. A mixed multinomial model evaluated how interactions with sociodemographic variables influence the choice of the selected attributes.SettingSix health facilities in a rural subcounty.ParticipantsWomen aged 18–49 years who had delivered within 6 weeks.Primary outcomeThe DCE required women to select from hypothetical health facility A or B or opt-out alternative.ResultsA total of 474 participants were sampled, 466 participants completed the survey (response rate 98%). The attribute with the strongest association with health facility preference was having a kind and supportive healthcare worker (β=1.184, p<0.001), second availability of medical equipment and drug supplies (β=1.073, p<0.001) and third quality of clinical services (β=0.826, p<0.001). Distance, availability of referral services and costs were ranked fourth, fifth and sixth, respectively (β=0.457, p<0.001; β=0.266, p<0.001; and β=0.000018, p<0.001). The opt-out alternative ranked last suggesting a disutility for home delivery (β=−0.849, p<0.001).ConclusionThe most highly valued attribute was a process indicator of quality of care followed by technical indicators. Policymakers need to consider women’s preferences to inform strategies that are person centred and lead to improvements in quality of care during delivery.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document