Best worst discrete choice experiments in health: Methods and an application

Social Science and Medicine

Volumn 76, Issue 1, 2013, Pages 74-82

  Lancsar, Emily ^a   Louviere, Jordan ^b   Donaldson, Cam ^c   Currie, Gillian ^d   Burgess, Leonie ^b  

^a MONASH UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY SYDNEY   (Australia)

^c GLASGOW CALEDONIAN UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^d UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY   (Canada)

Author keywords

Best worst discrete choice experiments; Best worst scaling; Canada; Cardiac arrest; Heterogeneity; Ranking; Sequential best worst

Indexed keywords

CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE; DISCRETE CHOICE ANALYSIS; HETEROGENEITY; PUBLIC HEALTH; RANKING;

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BEST WORST DISCRETE CHOICE EXPERIMENT; CANADA; DATA ANALYSIS; DECISION MAKING; EXPERIMENT; HEALTH; HEART ARREST; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; METHODOLOGY; PUBLIC HEALTH; PUBLIC OPINION; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; CANADA; CHOICE BEHAVIOR; DATA COLLECTION; EMPIRICAL RESEARCH; FEMALE; HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MODELS, PSYCHOLOGICAL; OUT-OF-HOSPITAL CARDIAC ARREST; PATIENT PREFERENCE; YOUNG ADULT;

ALBERTA; CALGARY; CANADA; EDMONTON;

EID: 84870885231     PISSN: 02779536     EISSN: 18735347     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2012.10.007     Document Type: Article

References (52)

1. Adamowicz W., Bunch D., Cameron T.A., Dellaert B.,G.C., Hanneman M., Keane M., et al. Behavioral frontiers in choice modeling. Marketing Letters 2008, 19:215-228.
2. Auger P., Devinney T., Louviere J. Using best-worst scaling methodology to investigate consumer ethical beliefs across countries. Journal of Business Ethics 2007, 70:299-326.
3. Beggs S., Cardell S., Hausman J., et al. Assessing the potential demand for electric cars. Journal of Econometrics 1981, 16:1-19.
4. Brown T., Pashos C., Joshi A., Lee W. The perspective of patients with haemophili with inhibitors and their care givers: preferences for treatment characteristics. Haemophilia 2011, 17:476-482.
5. Chapman R., Staelin R. Exploiting rank ordered choice set data within the stochastic utility model. Journal of Marketing Research 1982, XIX:288-301.
6. Coast J., Flynn T., Natarajan L., Sproston K., Lewis J., Louviere J., et al. Valuing the ICECAP capability index for older people. Social Science & Medicine 2008, 67:874-882.
7. De Bekker E., Ryan M., Gerard K. Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature. Health Economics 2012, 21:145-172.
8. Fiebig D., Knox S., Viney R., Haas M., Street D. Preferences for new and existing contraceptive products. Health Economics 2011, 20(Suppl. 1):35-52.
9. Finn A., Louviere J. Determining the appropriate response to evidence of public concern: the case of food safety. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing 1992, 11(1):12-25.
10. Flynn T. Valuing citizen and patient preferences in health: recent developments in three types of best-worst scaling. Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research 2010, 10:259-267.
11. Flynn T., Louviere J., Peters T., Coast J. Best-worst scaling: what it can do for health care and how to do it. Journal of Health Economics 2007, 26:171-189.
12. Flynn T., Louviere J., Peters T., Coast J. Estimating preferences for a dermatology consultation using best-worst scaling: comparison of various methods of analysis. BMC Medical Research Methodology 2008, 6:1-11.
13. Flynn T., Louviere J., Peters T., Coast J. Using discrete choice experiments to understand preferences for quality of life. Variance-scale heterogeneity matters. Social Science & Medicine 2010, 70(12):1957-1965.
14. Fok D., Paap R., van Dyke B. A rank-ordered logit with unobserved heterogeneity in ranking capabilities. Journal of Applied Econometrics 2012, 27:831-846.
15. Hole A.R. Small-sample properties of tests for heteroscedasticity in the conditional logit model. Economics Bulletin 2006, 3:1-14.
16. Hole A.R. Fitting mixed logit models by using maximum simulated likelihood. The Stata Journal 2007, 7:388-401.
17. Hole A.R. Modelling heterogeneity in patients' preferences for the attributes of a general practitioner appointment. Journal of Health Economics 2008, 27:1078-1094.
18. Huber J., Zwerina K. The importance of utility balance in efficient choice designs. Journal of Marketing Research 1996, 33:307-317.
19. Kjaer T., Gyrd-Hansen D. Preference heterogeneity and choice of cardiac rehabilitation program: results from a discrete choice experiment. Health Policy 2008, 85:124-132.
20. Lancsar, E. (2009). New methods to estimate individual level choice models and Hicksian welfare measures from discrete choice experiments. PhD, University of Newcastle upon Tyne.
21. Lancsar E., Louviere J. Several methods for dealing with scale confound and efficiency in stated preference data with an empirical illustration 2005, Health Economics Study Group Meeting, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom.
22. Lancsar E., Louviere J. Conducting discrete choice experiments to inform healthcare decision making: a user's guide. PharmacoEconomics 2008, 26(8):661-677.
23. Lancsar E., Louviere J. Estimating individual level discrete choice models and welfare measures using best worst choice experiments and sequential best worst MNL 2008, Sydney, CenSoC Working Paper N. 08-003.
24. Lancsar E., Louviere J., Flynn T. Several methods to investigate relative attribute impact in stated preference experiments. Social Science & Medicine 2007, 64(8):1738-1753.
25. Louviere J., Carson R., Burgess L., Street D., Marley T. Sequential preference questions: Factors influencing completion rates using an online panel 2011, Sydney, CenSoC Working Paper N. 11-009.
26. Louviere J., Finn A., Timmermans H. Retail research methods. Handbook of marketing research 1994, McGraw-Hill, New York.
27. Louviere J., Flynn T.N. Using best-worst scaling choice experiments to measure public perceptions and preferences for healthcare reform in Australia. The Patient: Patient-centered Outcomes Research 2010, 3:275-283.
28. Louviere J., Street A., Burgess L., Wasi N., Islam T., Marley A. Modeling the choices of individual decision-makers by combining efficient choice experiment designs with extra preference information 2004, Sydney, CenSoC Working Paper N. 04-005.
29. Louviere J., Street A., Burgess L., Wasi N., Islam T., Marley A. Modeling the choices of individual decision-makers by combining efficient choice experiment designs with extra preference information. The Journal of Choice Modelling 2008, 1:128-163.
30. Louviere J., Street D., Carson R., Ainslie A., Deshazo J., Cameron T., et al. Dissecting the random component of utility. Marketing Letters 2002, 13(3):177-193.
31. Marley A. Some probabilistic models of simple choice and ranking. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 1968, 5:311-332.
32. Marley A. Conceptual relations between expanded rank data and models of the unexpanded rank data 2011, CenSoC Working Paper Sydney, University of Technology, Sydney.
33. Marley A., Louviere J. Some probabilistic models of best, worst, and best-worst choices. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 2005, 49(6):464-480.
34. Marley A., Louviere J., Flynn T. Probabilistic models of set-dependent and attribute-level best-worst choice. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 2008, 52:281-296.
35. McFadden D. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. Frontiers of econometrics 1973, 105-142. Academic Press, New York. P. Zarembka (Ed.).
36. McIntosh E., Louviere J. Separating weight and scale value: An exploration of best-attribute scaling in health economics 2002, Health Economics Study Group Meeting, Brunel University, United Kingdom.
37. Nichol G., Hallstrom A., Ornato J., Riegel B., Stiell I., Valenzuela T., et al. Potential cost-effectiveness of public access defibrillation in the United States. Circulation 2009, 97:1315-1320.
38. Nichol G., Valenzuela T., Roe D., Clark L., Huszti E., Wells G. Cost effectiveness of defibrillation by targeted responders in public settings. Circulation 2003, 108:697-703.
39. Potoglou D., Burge P., Flynn T., Netten A., Malley J., Forder J., et al. Best-worst scaling vs. discrete choice experiments: an empirical comparison using social care data. Social Science & Medicine 2011, 72:1717-1727.
40. Punj G., Staelin R. The choice process for graduate business schools. Journal of Marketing Research 1978, 15:588-598.
41. Ratcliffe J., Flynn T., Couzner L., Sawyer M., Stevens K., Brazier J., et al. Valuing child health utility 9D health states with a young adolescent sample: a feasibility study to compare best worst discrete choice, standard gamble and time trade off methods. Applied Health Economics and Health Policy 2011, 9:15-27.
42. Revelt D., Train K. Mixed logit with repeated choices: households' choices of appliance efficiency levels. Review of Economic Statistics 1998, 80(4):647-657.
43. Sandor Z., Wedel M. Designing conjoint choice experiments using managers' prior beliefs. Journal of Marketing Research 2001, 38:430-444.
44. Scarpa R., Notaro S., Louviere J., Rafelli R. Exploring scale effects of best/worst rank ordered choice data to estimate visitors benefits of tourism in alpine grazing commons. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 2011, 93(3):813-828.
45. Shafir E. Choosing rather than rejecting. Why some options are both better and worse than others. Memory and Cognition 1993, 21:546-556.
46. StataCorp Stata base reference manual. Q-Z reference 10 2007, Vol. 3. Stata Press, College Station TX.
47. Street D., Burgess L. The construction of optimal stated choice experiments: Theory and methods 2007, Wiley, Hoboken, New Jersey.
48. Swait J., Adamowicz W. Choice environment, market complexity, and consumer behavior: a theoretical and empirical approach for incorporating decision complexity into models of consumer choice. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes 2001, 86(2):141-167.
49. Szeinbach S., Barnes J., McGhan W., Murawiski M., Corey R. Using conjoint analysis to evaluate health state preferences. Drug Information Journal 1999, 33:849-858.
50. Train K. Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation 2003, University Press, Cambridge.
51. Vermeulen B., Goos P., Vandebroek M. Obtaining more information from conjoint experiments by best-worst choices. Computational Statistics and Data Analysis 2010, 54:1426-1433.
52. Walker A., Sirel J.M., Marsden A.K., Cobbe S.M., Pell J.P. Cost effectiveness and cost utility model of public place defibrillators in improving survival after prehospital cardiac arrest. British Medical Journal 2003, 327:1316-1321.