Choosing vs. allocating: Discrete choice experiments and constant-sum paired comparisons for the elicitation of societal preferences

Health Expectations

Volumn 18, Issue 5, 2015, Pages 1227-1240

  Skedgel, Chris D ^a,b   Wailoo, Allan J ^a   Akehurst, Ron L ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD   (United Kingdom)

^b Capital Health Halifax   (Canada)

Author keywords

Constant sum paired comparisons; Discrete choice experiments; Societal preferences; Stated preference methods

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; CHILD; DECISION MAKING; GREAT BRITAIN; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HUMAN; PATIENT PREFERENCE; PROCEDURES; QUALITY ADJUSTED LIFE YEAR; QUESTIONNAIRE; RESOURCE ALLOCATION; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; YOUNG ADULT;

ADOLESCENT; CHILD; CHOICE BEHAVIOR; GREAT BRITAIN; HEALTH POLICY; HUMANS; MATCHED-PAIR ANALYSIS; PATIENT PREFERENCE; QUALITY-ADJUSTED LIFE YEARS; RESOURCE ALLOCATION; SURVEYS AND QUESTIONNAIRES; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84942292365     PISSN: 13696513     EISSN: 13697625     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/hex.12098     Document Type: Article

References (49)

1. Dolan P, Shaw R, Tsuchiya A, Williams A. QALY maximisation and people's preferences: a methodological review of the literature. Health Economics, 2005; 14: 197-208.
2. Schwappach DL. Resource allocation, social values and the QALY: a review of the debate and empirical evidence. Health Expectations, 2002; 5: 210-222.
3. Baker R, Bateman I, Donaldson C et al. Weighting and valuing quality-adjusted life-years using stated preference methods: preliminary results from the Social Value of a QALY Project. Health Technology Assessment, 2010; 14: 1-162.
4. Louviere J, Hensher DA, Swait J. Conjoint preference elicitation methods in the broader context of random utility theory preference elicitation methods. In: Gustafsson A, Herrmann A, Huber F (eds). Conjoint Measurement: Methods and Applications. Berlin: Springer, 2000a. 167-198.
5. Ryan M, Scott DA, Reeves C et al. Eliciting public preferences for healthcare: a systematic review of techniques. Health Technology Assessment (Winchester, England), 2001; 5: 1-186.
6. Menzel P. How should what economists call "social values" be measured. The Journal of Ethics, 1999; 3: 249.
7. Mullen PM. Public involvement in health care priority setting: an overview of methods for eliciting values. Health Expectations, 1999; 2: 222-234.
8. Ali S, Ronaldson S. Ordinal preference elicitation methods in health economics and health services research: using discrete choice experiments and ranking methods. British Medical Bulletin, 2012; 103: 21-44.
9. De Bekker-Grob EW, Ryan M, Gerard K. Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature. Health Economics, 2010; 21: 145-172.
10. Green C, Gerard K. Exploring the social value of health-care interventions: a stated preference discrete choice experiment. Health Economics, 2009; 18: 951-976.
11. Koopmanschap MA, Stolk EA, Koolman X. Dear policy maker: have you made up your mind? A discrete choice experiment among policy makers and other health professionals. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 2010; 26: 198.
12. Lancsar E, Wildman J, Donaldson C, Ryan M, Baker R. Deriving distributional weights for QALYs through discrete choice experiments. Journal of Health Economics, 2011; 30: 466-478.
13. Norman R, Hall J, Street D, Viney R. Efficiency and equity: a stated preference approach. Health Economics, 2013; 22: 568-581.
14. Ratcliffe J, Bekker HL, Dolan P, Edlin R. Examining the attitudes and preferences of health care decision-makers in relation to access, equity and cost-effectiveness: a discrete choice experiment. Health Policy, 2009; 90: 45-57.
15. Shah K, Tsuchiya A, Hole AR, Wailoo A. Valuing health at the end of life: a stated preference discrete choice experiment [Internet]. NICE Decision Support Unit; 2012 Dec p. 56. Available at: http://www.nicedsu.org.uk/DSU%20End%20of%20Life%20full%20report%20-%20version%203%20_Dec%202012_.pdf, accessed 5 June 2013.
16. Schwappach DL. Does it matter who you are or what you gain? An experimental study of preferences for resource allocation. Health Economics, 2003; 12: 255-267.
17. Schwappach DL, Strasmann TJ. "Quick and dirty numbers"? The reliability of a stated-preference technique for the measurement of preferences for resource allocation. Journal of Health Economics, 2006; 25: 432-448.
18. Ratcliffe J. Public preferences for the allocation of donor liver grafts for transplantation. Health Economics, 2000; 9: 137-148.
19. Desser AS, Gyrd-Hansen D, Olsen JA, Grepperud S, Kristiansen IS. Societal views on orphan drugs: cross sectional survey of Norwegians aged 40 to 67. BMJ, 2010; 22: c4715-c4715.
20. Chan HM, Cheung GMY, Yip AKW. Selection criteria for recipients of scarce donor livers: a public opinion survey in Hong Kong. Hong Kong Medical Journal, 2006; 12: 40-46.
21. Linley WG, Hughes DA. Societal views on nice, cancer drugs fund and value-based pricing criteria for prioritising medicines: a cross-sectional survey of 4118 adults in Great Britain. Health Economics, 2012; doi: 10.1002/hec.2872 [Epub ahead of print]
22. Skedgel C. Societal preferences in the allocation of healthcare resources: an empirical ethics approach. Medical Decision Making., 2011; 31: E71.
23. Kuhfeld WF. Marketing research methods in SAS [Internet]. Marketing Research Methods in SAS. 2010 [cited 2010 Dec 1]. Available at: http://support.sas.com/resources/papers/tnote/tnote_marketresearch.html, accessed 5 June 2013.
24. Carlsson F, Martinsson P. Design techniques for stated preference methods in health economics. Health Economics, 2003; 12: 281-294.
25. Wright SP. Adjusted P-values for simultaneous inference. Biometrics, 1992; 48: 1005-1013.
26. Shaffer JP. Multiple hypothesis testing. Annual Review of Psychology, 1995; 46: 561-584.
27. R Core Team. R: a language and environment for statistical computing [Internet]. Vienna, Austria; 2012. Available at: http://www.R-project.org/, accessed 5 June 2013.
28. Scott A. Identifying and analysing dominant preferences in discrete choice experiments: an application in health care. Journal of Economic Psychology, 2002; 23: 383-398.
29. Mathews KE, Freeman ML, Desvousges WH. How and How Much? valuing environmental amenities using stated choice studies [Internet]. Springer Netherlands; 2007. p. 111-33. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-5313-4_5, accessed 5 June 2013.
30. Lancsar E, Louviere J. Deleting "irrational" responses from discrete choice experiments: a case of investigating or imposing preferences? Health Economics, 2006; 15: 797-811.
31. Louviere JJ, Hensher DA, Swait JD. Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000b.
32. Herve A. The kendall rank correlation coefficient. In: Salkind NJ, Rasmussen K (eds) The Encyclopedia of Measurement and Statistics. Thousand Oaks, CA, SAGE Publications, 2007: 1416.
33. Rizopoulos D. ltm: an R package for latent variable modelling item response theory analyses. Journal of Statistical Software, 2006; 17: 1-25.
34. Baltagi BH. Econometric Analysis of Panel Data, 4th edn. Chichester, UK: Wiley, 2008.
35. Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S. Applied logistic regression. New York: Wiley; 2000.
36. Henningsen A. censReg: censored regression (Tobit) models [Internet]. 2012. Available at: http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=censReg, accessed 5 June 2013.
37. Croissant Y. Pglm: panel generalized linear model [Internet]. 2010. Available at: http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=pglm, accessed 5 June 2013.
38. Swait J, Louviere J. The role of the scale parameter in the estimation and comparison of multinomial logit models. Journal of Marketing Research, 1993; 30: 305-314.
39. Orme B. Getting Started with Conjoint Analysis: Strategies for Product Design and Pricing Research. Madison: Research Publishers LLC, 2006.
40. Lancsar E, Louviere J, Flynn T. Several methods to investigate relative attribute impact in stated preference experiments. Social Science & Medicine (1982), 2007; 64: 1738-1753.
41. Keeney RL. Common mistakes in making value trade-offs. Operations Research, 2002; 50: 935-945.
42. Huber J. What we have learned from 20 years of conjoint research? [Internet]. Sawtooth Software; 2009. Available at: http://www.sawtoothsoftware.com/download/techpap/whatlrnd.pdf, accessed 5 June 2013.
43. Baron J, Greene J. Determinants of insensitivity to quantity in valuation of public goods: contribution, warm glow, budget constraints, availability, and prominence. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1996; 2: 107-125.
44. Fischer GW, Carmon Z, Ariely D, Zauberman G. Goal-based construction of preferences: task goals and the prominence effect. Management Science, 1999; 45: 1057-1075.
45. Giacomini M, Hurley J, DeJean D. Fair reckoning: a qualitative investigation of responses to an economic health resource allocation survey. Health Expectations [Internet]. 2012 Mar [cited 2012 Apr 30]; Available at: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/j.1369-7625.2011.00751.x, accessed 5 June 2013.
46. Ryan M. Rationalising the "irrational": a think aloud study of discrete choice experiment responses. Health Economics, 2009; 18: 321.
47. McQuillin B, Sugden R. Reconciling normative and behavioural economics: the problems to be solved. Social Choice and Welfare, 2012; 38: 553-567.
48. Severin V. Comparing statistical and respondent efficiency in choice experiments. [Unpublished PhD dissertation]. Sydney: University of Sydney, 2001.
49. Bartels DM, Medin DL. Are morally motivated decision makers insensitive to the consequences of their choices? Psychological Science, 2007; 18: 24-28.