Literature DB >> 29032437

Scale Heterogeneity in Healthcare Discrete Choice Experiments: A Primer.

Caroline M Vass1, Stuart Wright2, Michael Burton3, Katherine Payne2.   

Abstract

Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) are used to quantify the preferences of specified sample populations for different aspects of a good or service and are increasingly used to value interventions and services related to healthcare. Systematic reviews of healthcare DCEs have focussed on the trends over time of specific design issues and changes in the approach to analysis, with a more recent move towards consideration of a specific type of variation in preferences within the sample population, called taste heterogeneity, noting rises in the popularity of mixed logit and latent class models. Another type of variation, called scale heterogeneity, which relates to differences in the randomness of choice behaviour, may also account for some of the observed 'differences' in preference weights. The issue of scale heterogeneity becomes particularly important when comparing preferences across subgroups of the sample population as apparent differences in preferences could be due to taste and/or choice consistency. This primer aims to define and describe the relevance of scale heterogeneity in a healthcare context, and illustrate key points, with a simulated data set provided to readers in the Online appendix.

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29032437     DOI: 10.1007/s40271-017-0282-4

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


  14 in total

1.  Using discrete choice experiments to understand preferences for quality of life. Variance-scale heterogeneity matters.

Authors:  Terry Nicholas Flynn; Jordan J Louviere; Tim J Peters; Joanna Coast
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  2010-03-23       Impact factor: 4.634

2.  Discrete choice experiments to measure consumer preferences for health and healthcare.

Authors:  Rosalie Viney; Emily Lancsar; Jordan Louviere
Journal:  Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res       Date:  2002-08       Impact factor: 2.217

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

Authors:  Mickael Bech; Trine Kjaer; Jørgen Lauridsen
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  2011-03       Impact factor: 3.046

4.  Valuing pharmacogenetic testing services: a comparison of patients' and health care professionals' preferences.

Authors:  Katherine Payne; Emily A Fargher; Stephen A Roberts; Karen Tricker; Rachel A Elliott; Julie Ratcliffe; William G Newman
Journal:  Value Health       Date:  2011-01       Impact factor: 5.725

5.  Conducting discrete choice experiments to inform healthcare decision making: a user's guide.

Authors:  Emily Lancsar; Jordan Louviere
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 4.981

6.  Investigating the Heterogeneity in Women's Preferences for Breast Screening: Does the Communication of Risk Matter?

Authors:  Caroline M Vass; Dan Rigby; Katherine Payne
Journal:  Value Health       Date:  2017-09-01       Impact factor: 5.725

Review 7.  Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature.

Authors:  Esther W de Bekker-Grob; Mandy Ryan; Karen Gerard
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  2010-12-19       Impact factor: 3.046

8.  Genomic testing to determine drug response: measuring preferences of the public and patients using Discrete Choice Experiment (DCE).

Authors:  Mehdi Najafzadeh; Karissa M Johnston; Stuart J Peacock; Joseph M Connors; Marco A Marra; Larry D Lynd; Carlo A Marra
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2013-10-31       Impact factor: 2.655

Review 9.  The Role of Qualitative Research Methods in Discrete Choice Experiments.

Authors:  Caroline Vass; Dan Rigby; Katherine Payne
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2017-01-06       Impact factor: 2.583

10.  Patients' and physicians' preferences for type 2 diabetes mellitus treatments in Spain and Portugal: a discrete choice experiment.

Authors:  Carlos Morillas; Rosa Feliciano; Pablo Fernández Catalina; Carla Ponte; Marta Botella; João Rodrigues; Enric Esmatjes; Javier Lafita; Luis Lizán; Ignacio Llorente; Cristóbal Morales; Jorge Navarro-Pérez; Domingo Orozco-Beltran; Silvia Paz; Antonio Ramirez de Arellano; Cristina Cardoso; Maribel Tribaldos Causadias
Journal:  Patient Prefer Adherence       Date:  2015-10-14       Impact factor: 2.711

View more
  17 in total

1.  Benefit-Risk or Risk-Benefit Trade-Offs? Another Look at Attribute Ordering Effects in a Pilot Choice Experiment.

Authors:  Sebastian Heidenreich; Andrea Phillips-Beyer; Bruno Flamion; Melissa Ross; Jaein Seo; Kevin Marsh
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2020-11-11       Impact factor: 3.883

2.  Comparing the Preferences of Patients and the General Public for Treatment Outcomes in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus.

Authors:  Norah L Crossnohere; Sarah Janse; Ellen Janssen; John F P Bridges
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2021-01       Impact factor: 3.883

3.  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

4.  Stubbing out hypothetical bias: improving tobacco market predictions by combining stated and revealed preference data.

Authors:  John Buckell; Stephane Hess
Journal:  J Health Econ       Date:  2019-04-02       Impact factor: 3.883

5.  Do preferences differ based on respondent experience of a health issue and its treatment? A case study using a public health intervention.

Authors:  David J Mott; Laura Ternent; Luke Vale
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2022-06-18

6.  Current Practices for Accounting for Preference Heterogeneity in Health-Related Discrete Choice Experiments: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Suzana Karim; Benjamin M Craig; Caroline Vass; Catharina G M Groothuis-Oudshoorn
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2022-08-12       Impact factor: 4.558

7.  Valuing EQ-5D-Y-3L Health States Using a Discrete Choice Experiment: Do Adult and Adolescent Preferences Differ?

Authors:  David J Mott; Koonal K Shah; Juan Manuel Ramos-Goñi; Nancy J Devlin; Oliver Rivero-Arias
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2021-03-18       Impact factor: 2.583

8.  Heterogeneity in Preferences for Anti-coagulant Use in Atrial Fibrillation: A Latent Class Analysis.

Authors:  Janine van Til; Catharina Oudshoorn-Groothuis; Marieke Weernink; Clemens von Birgelen
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2020-08       Impact factor: 3.883

9.  Public preferences regarding data linkage for research: a discrete choice experiment comparing Scotland and Sweden.

Authors:  Mary P Tully; Cecilia Bernsten; Mhairi Aitken; Caroline Vass
Journal:  BMC Med Inform Decis Mak       Date:  2020-06-16       Impact factor: 2.796

10.  An Exploratory Application of Eye-Tracking Methods in a Discrete Choice Experiment.

Authors:  Caroline Vass; Dan Rigby; Kelly Tate; Andrew Stewart; Katherine Payne
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2018-08       Impact factor: 2.583

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.