Academic Papers

Where SurveyEngine was a key contributor or provided fieldwork management and technology.2017
Cutler H, Gu Y, Olin E. 2017. Assessing choice for public hospital patients. Report of the Centre for the Health Economy, Macquarie University, Australia.

Meshcheriakova O, Goodall S, Viney R. 2017. Consumer preferences for food processing technologies: Evidence from a discrete choice experiment. IHEA Boston World Congress, Boston, USA.

Kenny P, Goodall St, Street DJ, Greene J. 2017. Choosing a Doctor: Does Presentation Format Affect the Way Consumers Use Health Care Performance Information. The Patient. 10(45):1-13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-017-0245-9.

2016
King, MT et al. 2016. Two New Cancer-Specific Multi-Attribute Utility Instruments: EORTC QLU-C10D and FACT-8D. Value in Health 19(7):A807.

King M. et. al. 2016. QLU-C10D: a health state classification system for a multi-attribute utility measure based on the EORTC QLQ-C30. Quality of Life Research 25(3):625-636. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-015-1217-y.

Norman R, Kemmler G, Viney R, Pickard S, Gamper E, Holzner B, Nerich V, King M. 2016.Order of presentation of dimensions did not systematically bias utility weights from a discrete choice experiment. Value in Health. 19(8):1033-1038. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2016.07.003.

Norman R, Mulhern B, Viney R. 2016. The impact of different DCE-based approaches when anchoring utility scores. Pharmacoeconomics 34(8):805-814. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-016-0399-7.

Norman R, Viney R, Aaronson NK, Brazier JE, Cella DF, Costa DSJ, Fayers PM, Kemmler G, Peacock S, Pickard AS, Rowen D, Street D, Velikova G, Young TA, King MT. 2016. Using a discrete choice experiment to value the QLU-C10D: Feasibility and sensitivity to presentation format. Quality of Life Research 25(3):637-649. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-015-1115-3.

Hole AR, Norman R, Viney R. 2016. Response Patterns in Health State Valuation Using Endogenous Attribute Attendance and Latent Class Analysis. Health Economics 25(2):212-224. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.3134.

2014
Gu Y, Norman R, Viney R. 2014. Estimating health state utility values from discrete choice experiments – a QALY space model approach. Health Economics. 23(9):1098-1114. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.3066.

Norman R, Viney R, Brazier J, Burgess L, Cronin P, King M, Ratcliffe J, Street D. 2014. Valuing SF-6D health states using a Discrete Choice Experiment. Medical Decision Making. 34(6):773-786. http://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X13503499.

Viney R, Norman R, Brazier J, Cronin P, King M, Ratcliffe J, Street D. 2014. An Australian discrete choice experiment to value EQ-5D health states. Health Economics. 23(6):729-742. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.2953.

2013
Norman R, Hall J, Street D, Viney R. 2013. Efficiency and Equity: A stated preference approach. Health Economics 22(5):568-81. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.2827. 

Norman R, Cronin P, Viney R. 2013. A pilot discrete choice experiment to explore preferences for EQ-5D-5L health states.Applied Health Economics and Health Policy. 11(3):287-298. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40258-013-0035-z.

2011
Viney R, Norman R, King MT, Cronin P, Street DJ, Knox S, Ratcliffe J. 2011. Time Trade-Off Derived EQ-5D Weights for Australia. Value in Health. 14(6):928-936. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2011.04.009.