Literature DB >> 18657102

Does attribute framing in discrete choice experiments influence willingness to pay? Results from a discrete choice experiment in screening for colorectal cancer.

Kirsten Howard1, Glenn Salkeld.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Recent reviews of discrete choice methodology identified methodological issues warranting further exploration, including the issue of "framing." The objective of this study was to conduct a methodological exploration of the effect of attribute framing on marginal rates of substitution (MRS), including willingness to pay (WTP) from a discrete choice experiment (DCE), within the context of colorectal cancer screening preferences.
METHODS: The survey, a fractional factorial design of a two-alternative, unlabeled experiment, was mailed to a sample of 1920 subjects in NSW, Australia. Participants were randomized to one of four alternative "frames" of information. Attributes included: accuracy of the test for finding cancers, accuracy of the test for finding large polyps, how good the test is at saying you don't have cancer, cost, dietary and medication restrictions and sample collection. A mixed logit model was used to estimate preferences; MRS between attributes, including WTP, was calculated.
RESULTS: A total of 1157 surveys from 1920 (60.2%) were returned. Accuracy of the test for finding cancer was most likely to influence choice of test, followed by accuracy of the test for finding large polyps. Under some circumstances, framing of the attributes (e.g., cancers found vs. cancers missed) influenced the relative importance of attributes. Attribute framing significantly influenced estimates of WTP, and benefit: harm trade-offs that were calculated from MRS.
CONCLUSIONS: Attribute framing can influence willingness to pay and benefit: harm trade-offs from DCEs. Appropriate design and analysis methods should be explored to further characterize the influence and extent of framing in discrete choice studies.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18657102     DOI: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2008.00417.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Value Health        ISSN: 1098-3015            Impact factor:   5.725


  34 in total

Review 1.  A Note on the Validity and Reliability of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis for the Benefit-Risk Assessment of Medicines.

Authors:  Alberto Garcia-Hernandez
Journal:  Drug Saf       Date:  2015-11       Impact factor: 5.606

2.  Measuring Preferences for Colorectal Cancer Screening: What are the Implications for Moving Forward?

Authors:  Deborah Marshall; S Elizabeth McGregor; Gillian Currie
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2010-06-01       Impact factor: 3.883

Review 3.  Risk as an attribute in discrete choice experiments: a systematic review of the literature.

Authors:  Mark Harrison; Dan Rigby; Caroline Vass; Terry Flynn; Jordan Louviere; Katherine Payne
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2014       Impact factor: 3.883

Review 4.  Assessing stated preferences for colorectal cancer screening: a critical systematic review of discrete choice experiments.

Authors:  S Wortley; G Wong; A Kieu; K Howard
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2014       Impact factor: 3.883

5.  Using Discrete-Choice Experiment Methods to Estimate the Value of Informal Care: The Case of Children with Intellectual Disability.

Authors:  Sheena Arora; Stephen Goodall; Rosalie Viney; Stewart Einfeld
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2019-04       Impact factor: 4.981

6.  Patient preferences for treatment of achilles tendon pain: results from a discrete-choice experiment.

Authors:  Kent R Sweeting; Jennifer A Whitty; Paul A Scuffham; Michael J Yelland
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2011       Impact factor: 3.883

7.  Preferences for colorectal cancer screening strategies: a discrete choice experiment.

Authors:  L Hol; E W de Bekker-Grob; L van Dam; B Donkers; E J Kuipers; J D F Habbema; E W Steyerberg; M E van Leerdam; M L Essink-Bot
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2010-03-02       Impact factor: 7.640

8.  Comparing 3 techniques for eliciting patient values for decision making about prostate-specific antigen screening: a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Michael Patrick Pignone; Kirsten Howard; Alison Tytell Brenner; Trisha Melinda Crutchfield; Sarah Tropman Hawley; Carmen Lynn Lewis; Stacey Lynn Sheridan
Journal:  JAMA Intern Med       Date:  2013-03-11       Impact factor: 21.873

Review 9.  Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature.

Authors:  Michael D Clark; Domino Determann; Stavros Petrou; Domenico Moro; Esther W de Bekker-Grob
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2014-09       Impact factor: 4.981

10.  How well do discrete choice experiments predict health choices? A systematic review and meta-analysis of external validity.

Authors:  Matthew Quaife; Fern Terris-Prestholt; Gian Luca Di Tanna; Peter Vickerman
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2018-01-29
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.