Literature DB >> 25038741

Constant-sum paired comparisons for eliciting stated preferences: a tutorial.

Chris Skedgel1, Dean A Regier.   

Abstract

There is growing recognition of the importance of formally including public preferences and values in societal decision-making processes. Constant-sum paired comparison (CSPC), sometimes known as a 'budget pie' task, is a stated preference method than can be used to elicit and measure these preferences and values. It requires respondents to allocate resources between two alternatives, and the relative allocation of this resource is assumed to reflect the importance or priority that respondents attach to the attribute levels in each alternative. CSPC is useful in addressing questions over preferences for the distribution of resources, and allows for an explicit linkage of budget constraints, opportunity costs, outcomes and group characteristics. A key property of CSPC is the ability to allocate some resources to the less preferred alternative, forcing respondents to reflect on the relative value of both alternatives, and possibly giving it an advantage in contexts such as healthcare where respondents may find it ethically difficult or objectionable to make all-or-nothing allocations. This tutorial will outline the theory underlying CSPC, and will work through a detailed example of administering and interpreting a CSPC elicitation, including defining attributes and levels, constructing experimental design, task presentation, and analysis and interpretation.

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25038741     DOI: 10.1007/s40271-014-0077-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Patient        ISSN: 1178-1653            Impact factor:   3.883


  25 in total

1.  Public preferences for the allocation of donor liver grafts for transplantation.

Authors:  J Ratcliffe
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  2000-03       Impact factor: 3.046

2.  QALYs and the equity-efficiency trade-off.

Authors:  A Wagstaff
Journal:  J Health Econ       Date:  1991-05       Impact factor: 3.883

3.  Deleting 'irrational' responses from discrete choice experiments: a case of investigating or imposing preferences?

Authors:  Emily Lancsar; Jordan Louviere
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  2006-08       Impact factor: 3.046

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

Authors:  Chris D Skedgel; Allan J Wailoo; Ron L Akehurst
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2013-06-12       Impact factor: 3.377

5.  Conjoint analysis applications in health--a checklist: a report of the ISPOR Good Research Practices for Conjoint Analysis Task Force.

Authors:  John F P Bridges; A Brett Hauber; Deborah Marshall; Andrew Lloyd; Lisa A Prosser; Dean A Regier; F Reed Johnson; Josephine Mauskopf
Journal:  Value Health       Date:  2011-04-22       Impact factor: 5.725

Review 6.  On the societal value of health care: what do we know about the person trade-off technique?

Authors:  C Green
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  2001-04       Impact factor: 3.046

7.  Selection criteria for recipients of scarce donor livers: a public opinion survey in Hong Kong.

Authors:  H M Chan; G M Y Cheung; A K W Yip
Journal:  Hong Kong Med J       Date:  2006-02       Impact factor: 2.227

8.  Does it matter who you are or what you gain? An experimental study of preferences for resource allocation.

Authors:  David L B Schwappach
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  2003-04       Impact factor: 3.046

Review 9.  The person-trade-off approach to valuing health care programs.

Authors:  E Nord
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  1995 Jul-Sep       Impact factor: 2.583

10.  Why people refuse to make tradeoffs in person tradeoff elicitations: a matter of perspective?

Authors:  Laura J Damschroder; Todd R Roberts; Brian J Zikmund-Fisher; Peter A Ubel
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2007 May-Jun       Impact factor: 2.583

View more
  2 in total

1.  Does the use of the proportional shortfall help align the prioritisation of health services with public preferences?

Authors:  Jeff Richardson; Angelo Iezzi; Aimee Maxwell; Gang Chen
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2017-08-11

2.  Does a patient's health potential affect the social valuation of health services?

Authors:  Jeff Richardson; Angelo Iezzi; Aimee Maxwell
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-04-24       Impact factor: 3.240

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.