Literature DB >> 20143304

Does the number of choice sets matter? Results from a web survey applying a discrete choice experiment.

Mickael Bech1, Trine Kjaer, Jørgen Lauridsen.   

Abstract

Optimising the design of discrete choice experiments (DCE) involves maximising not only the statistical efficiency, but also how the nature and complexity of the experiment itself affects model parameters and variance. The present paper contributes by investigating the impact of the number of DCE choice sets presented to each respondent on response rate, self-reported choice certainty, perceived choice difficulty, willingness-to-pay (WTP) estimates, and response variance. A sample of 1053 respondents was exposed to 5, 9 or 17 choice sets in a DCE eliciting preferences for dental services. Our results showed no differences in response rates and no systematic differences in the respondents' self-reported perception of the uncertainty of their DCE answers. There were some differences in WTP estimates suggesting that estimated preferences are to some extent context-dependent, but no differences in standard deviations for WTP estimates or goodness-of-fit statistics. Respondents exposed to 17 choice sets had somewhat higher response variance compared to those exposed to 5 choice sets, indicating that cognitive burden may increase with the number of choice sets beyond a certain threshold. Overall, our results suggest that respondents are capable of managing multiple choice sets - in this case 17 choice sets - without problems.
Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 20143304     DOI: 10.1002/hec.1587

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Health Econ        ISSN: 1057-9230            Impact factor:   3.046


  38 in total

1.  Redistribution through social health insurance: evidence on citizen preferences.

Authors:  Christian Pfarr; Andreas Schmid
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2015-07-02

2.  Age at Diagnosis and Patient Preferences for Treatment Outcomes in AML: A Discrete Choice Experiment to Explore Meaningful Benefits.

Authors:  Daniel R Richardson; Norah L Crossnohere; Jaein Seo; Elihu Estey; Bernadette O'Donoghue; B Douglas Smith; John F P Bridges
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2020-03-04       Impact factor: 4.254

Review 3.  Opening the 'Black Box': An Overview of Methods to Investigate the Decision-Making Process in Choice-Based Surveys.

Authors:  Dan Rigby; Caroline Vass; Katherine Payne
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2020-02       Impact factor: 3.883

4.  Scale Heterogeneity in Healthcare Discrete Choice Experiments: A Primer.

Authors:  Caroline M Vass; Stuart Wright; Michael Burton; Katherine Payne
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2018-04       Impact factor: 3.883

5.  Preferences for Multiple Sclerosis Treatments: Using a Discrete-Choice Experiment to Examine Differences Across Subgroups of US Patients.

Authors:  Carol Mansfield; Nina Thomas; David Gebben; Maria Lucas; A Brett Hauber
Journal:  Int J MS Care       Date:  2017 Jul-Aug

6.  Accounting for Scale Heterogeneity in Healthcare-Related Discrete Choice Experiments when Comparing Stated Preferences: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Stuart J Wright; Caroline M Vass; Gene Sim; Michael Burton; Denzil G Fiebig; Katherine Payne
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2018-10       Impact factor: 3.883

7.  Can patients diagnosed with schizophrenia complete choice-based conjoint analysis tasks?

Authors:  John F P Bridges; Elizabeth T Kinter; Annette Schmeding; Ina Rudolph; Axel Mühlbacher
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2011       Impact factor: 3.883

8.  Relying on an "Other" Category Leads to Significant Misclassification of Sexual Minority Participants.

Authors:  Tierney K Lorenz
Journal:  LGBT Health       Date:  2021-06-07       Impact factor: 4.151

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.  Preferences for antiviral therapy of chronic hepatitis C: a discrete choice experiment.

Authors:  Axel C Mühlbacher; John F P Bridges; Susanne Bethge; Ch-Markos Dintsios; Anja Schwalm; Andreas Gerber-Grote; Matthias Nübling
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2016-02-04
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.