4703ALL01

Similar documents
Title ベンチャー企業の研究開発支出の決定要因 日本と台湾の事例を中心に Author(s) 蘇, 顯揚 Citation 經濟論叢 (1996), 158(1): Issue Date URL Right

評論・社会科学 85号(よこ)(P)/3.佐分

00.\...ec5

<95DB8C9288E397C389C88A E696E6462>

60 Vol. 44 No. 1 2 準市場 化の制度的枠組み: 英国 教育改革法 1988 の例 Education Reform Act a School Performance Tables LEA 4 LEA LEA 3

And Business

時間割引:双曲割引と弱加法性

17 Proposal of an Algorithm of Image Extraction and Research on Improvement of a Man-machine Interface of Food Intake Measuring System

Perspective-Taking Perspective-Taking.... Vol. No.

..,,...,..,...,,.,....,,,.,.,,.,.,,,.,.,.,.,,.,,,.,,,,.,,, Becker., Becker,,,,,, Becker,.,,,,.,,.,.,,

02古郡氏李氏_a_4.indd

Stepwise Chow Test * Chow Test Chow Test Stepwise Chow Test Stepwise Chow Test Stepwise Chow Test Riddell Riddell first step second step sub-step Step

untitled

橡同居選択における所得の影響(DP原稿).PDF


自殺の経済社会的要因に関する調査研究報告書


表紙_目次.PDF

()


Web Stamps 96 KJ Stamps Web Vol 8, No 1, 2004

高齢化とマクロ投資比率―国際パネルデータを用いた分析―

2 (S, C, R, p, q, S, C, ML ) S = {s 1, s 2,..., s n } C = {c 1, c 2,..., c m } n = S m = C R = {r 1, r 2,...} r r 2 C \ p = (p r ) r R q = (q r ) r R

わが国企業による資金調達方法の選択問題



220 28;29) 30 35) 26;27) % 8.0% 9 36) 8) 14) 37) O O 13 2 E S % % 2 6 1fl 2fl 3fl 3 4


履  歴  書

DOUSHISYA-sports_R12339(高解像度).pdf

OECD Benartzi and Thaler Brown et al. Mottla and Utkus Rooiji et al. Atkinson et al. MacFarland et al. Elton et al. Tang et al. Benartzi and Thaler Br

1 1 1 [2000]

DP doc


Graduate School of Policy and Management, Doshisha University 53 動学的資本税協調と公的資本形成 あらまし Zodrow and Mieszkowski 1986 Wilson 1986 Batina はじめに Zodr


Ł\1,4.ai

HPV HPV HPV HPV 7 HPV 8 9 HPV 3 HPV HPV HPV , Becker Ajzen H

公務員倫理問題への新アプローチ

The Japanese Journal of Health Psychology, 29(S): (2017)

日本の高齢者世帯の貯蓄行動に関する実証分析

産業・企業レベルデータで見た日本の経済成長.pdf



Japanese Journal of Applied Psychology

第62巻 第1号 平成24年4月/石こうを用いた木材ペレット

149 (Newell [5]) Newell [5], [1], [1], [11] Li,Ryu, and Song [2], [11] Li,Ryu, and Song [2], [1] 1) 2) ( ) ( ) 3) T : 2 a : 3 a 1 :

文部科学省科学研究費補助金特定領域研究B

Ⅰ. 緒言 Suzuki, et al., Ⅱ. 研究方法 1. 対象および方法 1 6 表 1 1, 調査票の内容 図

大薬大紀要2008

2. TMT TMT TMT 1 TMT 3 1 TMT TMT PI PI PI SA PI SA SA PI SA PI SA

The Journal of the Japan Academy of Nursing Administration and Policies Vol 7, No 2, pp 19 _ 30, 2004 Survey on Counseling Services Performed by Nursi

_’£”R‡Ù‡©

2

第3回委員会(2月20日)資料NO

IPSJ SIG Technical Report Vol.2014-EIP-63 No /2/21 1,a) Wi-Fi Probe Request MAC MAC Probe Request MAC A dynamic ads control based on tra

オーストラリア研究紀要 36号(P)☆/3.橋本


WHO WHO WHO WHO WHO WHO WHO WHO WHO (Aaron Antonovsky, - ) WHO WHO - WHO

中田真佐男 323‐352/323‐352

untitled


Transcription:

473201010 *** (1999) 16 2017 20023 2 1 2

1220 (1999a),(1999b) (1998), (2002) (2003)(1999)(2003) Conjoint Analysis Conjoint Analysis Willingness to PayStandard gamble Time trade-off Rating Scale Willingness to Pay Standard gambletime trade-offrating Scale Conjoint Analysis 3 (Individual Effect) 2 Conjoint Analysis

3 Conjoint Analysis 45 (1) 7020-69 Conjoint Analysis 5% 6 16 12 3 5% Attribute 312 31 201550% 3 5% 4

5% 4 16

1. 2. 3 1 1.... 1........ 1....

1. 2. 3 1 10 1.... 1 11 12.... 13 14.... 15 16 2....

(2) 2 3 5 102203 4%12% 208 24 20

1. 2. 20 2.. 3.. 3.. 3.. 3.. 3.. 3.. 3.. 3.. 3

Attribute 3 2 1 (3) Ci,k 1 0 33 U* U* U1() U0 U*>0Ci,k 1U*< 0 Ci,k 0 Xi,k Attribute1 2 1 0 10 1 010 1021 10 1 0 1 0 1 0 k Zi i Random effect Probit Model (Butler and Moffitt(1982))

Attribute 1 Attribute U*12 Attirbute X1X2dU* 0 Attribute (2) 1,2X1X2 2 X1X2 P1P2 2/P21/P1 1 X1 X2 X1X2 16 2 3 70 20 69 2 5 70 20 69 920900790

757 85.8 84.1

(1) 3 4 3Attribute

4 Attribute 2

(2) 342 5 1Attribute 1 5.391 14.045.76 1.86 1.42

6 4 Attribute 1.15 1.91 0.58 Attribute 2 3 Attribute 161000 0.16 15 70 43,969 0.70 (1994) 6 20 157055,6981.11 16 6 71.2

16 2380 0.17 5 87,000 1.25 1 16 1 0.94 161000 0.24 15 69 80,004 1.94 1.11160.356 0.39 16 46.7 15 13.215 69 141,535 46.713.20.87 15 15.8 7 8

7 1 1 1 8 70 20 69 1 1

1999a Vol.6 1999b Vol.9, No.3(2004) (2000)Vo.36 No.3, pp.338-352 (1999)Vol34,No.4 (2003) 14 (2003)15 2000Conjoint AnalysisVol.10, No.1,pp. 125-144 (2000) No.40,pp.88-104 (2002)Gerontology New HorizonVol.14 No.3,pp.53-57 (2003)() 8 2,pp.1-14 1999Vol.9, No.3 2003140 (1994) (1991) 27(1):pp.11-18 (1997a) (1997b)Vol.4 (1998)21No.2001,pp.6-10 (1994) 1999 1999 (2003)2002 (2 ),pp.35-60 (2004)No.49,pp.1-21 (2003) Akkazieva, B et al(2006) Patients s Preferences for Healthcare System Reforms in Hungary AConjoint Analysis., Applied Health Economics & Heallllth Policy 5(3), pp.189-198 Butler,J. and R.Moffitt(1982), A Computatinally Efficient Quadrature Procedure for the One Factor Multinominal Probit Model., Econometrica 50,pp.347-364 Bryan, S., M. Buxton, R. Sheldon, A. Grant (1998), The Use of Magnetic Resonance Imaging for The Investigation of Knee Injuries: A Discrete Choice Conjoint Analysis Exercise., Health Economics 7, pp.595-604 Freeman, J. (1998), Assessing the Need for Student Health Services Using Maximum Difference Conjoint Analysis, Journal of Research in Pharmaceutical Economics 9(3), pp35-49.

Hakim, A. and D. Pathak (1999), Modelling the EuroQol Data : A comparison of Discrete Choice Conjoint and Conditional Prefrence Modelling Health Economics 8, pp103-116. Ratcliffe,J and M.Buxton (1999), Patients Preferences Regarding the Process and Outcomes of Life Saving Technology : An Application of Conjoint Analysis to Liver Transplantation International Journal Technological Assessment Health Care 15(2),pp 340-351. Ryan,M. (1999), Using Conjoint Analysis to Take Account of Patient Preferences and Go Beyond Health Outcomes. An Application to In-Vitro Fertilization, Social Science and Medicine 48, pp.535-546. Ryan, M. and S. Farrar (1994), A Pilot Study Using Conjoint Analysis to Establish the Views of Users in the Provision of Orthodontic Services in Grampian., Health Economics Reserch Unit Discussion Paper No 07/94,Aberdeen, University of Aberdeen. Ryan, M and J. Hughes (1997), Using Conjoint Analysis to Assess Women s Preference for Miscarriage Management, Health Economics 6, pp.261-274 Schwappach, DLB(2003) Does It Matter Who You Are or What You Gain? An Experimental Study of Preferences for Reasource Allocation. Health Economics 12(4), pp.255-267 Singh, J., L. Cuttler, M. Shin, J. Silvers and D. Neuhauser (1998), Medical Decision-making and the Patient: Understanding Preference Patterns for Growth Hormone Therapy Using Conjoint Analysis, Medical Care 36(8) supplement, pp31-45. Telser, H and Zweifel, P(2002) Measuring willingness-to pay for risk reduction: an application of conjoint analysis. Health Economics 11(2), pp.129-139 Yashiro,N., R. Suzuki and W. Suzuki(2004) Evaluating Japan s Health Care Reform in the 1990s and Major Issues Coping with the Aging of the Population Prepared for National Bureau of Economic Research - Japan Center for Economic Research Conference