Literature DB >> 30073482

Including Opt-Out Options in Discrete Choice Experiments: Issues to Consider.

Danny Campbell1, Seda Erdem2.   

Abstract

Providing an opt-out alternative in discrete choice experiments can often be considered to be important for presenting real-life choice situations in different contexts, including health. However, insufficient attention has been given to how best to address choice behaviours relating to this opt-out alternative when modelling discrete choice experiments, particularly in health studies. The objective of this paper is to demonstrate how to account for different opt-out effects in choice models. We aim to contribute to a better understanding of how to model opt-out choices and show the consequences of addressing the effects in an incorrect fashion. We present our code written in the R statistical language so that others can explore these issues in their own data. In this practical guideline, we generate synthetic data on medication choice and use Monte Carlo simulation. We consider three different definitions for the opt-out alternative and four candidate models for each definition. We apply a frequentist-based multimodel inference approach and use performance indicators to assess the relative suitability of each candidate model in a range of settings. We show that misspecifying the opt-out effect has repercussions for marginal willingness to pay estimation and the forecasting of market shares. Our findings also suggest a number of key recommendations for DCE practitioners interested in exploring these issues. There is no unique best way to analyse data collected from discrete choice experiments. Researchers should consider several models so that the relative support for different hypotheses of opt-out effects can be explored.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 30073482     DOI: 10.1007/s40271-018-0324-6

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


  10 in total

1.  The veil of experience: do consumers prefer what they know best?

Authors:  G Salkeld; M Ryan; L Short
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  2000-04       Impact factor: 3.046

2.  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

3.  Health Preference Research: An Overview.

Authors:  Benjamin M Craig; Emily Lancsar; Axel C Mühlbacher; Derek S Brown; Jan Ostermann
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2017-08       Impact factor: 3.883

4.  Elimination and selection by aspects in health choice experiments: prioritising health service innovations.

Authors:  Seda Erdem; Danny Campbell; Carl Thompson
Journal:  J Health Econ       Date:  2014-07-14       Impact factor: 3.883

5.  Preferences for long-term care services: willingness to pay estimates derived from a discrete choice experiment.

Authors:  Anna P Nieboer; Xander Koolman; Elly A Stolk
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  2010-02-12       Impact factor: 4.634

6.  What are frail older people prepared to endure to achieve improved mobility following hip fracture? A Discrete Choice Experiment.

Authors:  Rachel Milte; Julie Ratcliffe; Michelle Miller; Craig Whitehead; Ian D Cameron; Maria Crotty
Journal:  J Rehabil Med       Date:  2013-01       Impact factor: 2.912

7.  Choice experiments in health: the good, the bad, the ugly and toward a brighter future.

Authors:  Jordan J Louviere; Emily Lancsar
Journal:  Health Econ Policy Law       Date:  2009-10

8.  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

9.  Modelling non-demanders in choice experiments.

Authors:  Mandy Ryan; Diane Skåtun
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  2004-04       Impact factor: 3.046

10.  The effect of including an opt-out option in discrete choice experiments.

Authors:  Jorien Veldwijk; Mattijs S Lambooij; Esther W de Bekker-Grob; Henriëtte A Smit; G Ardine de Wit
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-11-03       Impact factor: 3.240

  10 in total
  12 in total

1.  Patient-centered benefit-risk analysis of transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

Authors:  Kevin Marsh; Natalia Hawken; Ella Brookes; Carrie Kuehn; Barry Liden
Journal:  F1000Res       Date:  2019-04-08

2.  Differences in HIV cure clinical trial preferences of French people living with HIV and physicians in the ANRS-APSEC study: a discrete choice experiment.

Authors:  Christel Protiere; Michael Arnold; Marion Fiorentino; Lisa Fressard; Jean D Lelièvre; Mohamed Mimi; François Raffi; Marion Mora; Laurence Meyer; Luis Sagaon-Teyssier; David Zucman; Marie Préau; Olivier Lambotte; Bruno Spire; Marie Suzan-Monti
Journal:  J Int AIDS Soc       Date:  2020-02       Impact factor: 5.396

3.  Improving the demand for birth registration: a discrete choice experiment in Ethiopia.

Authors:  Mahari Yihdego; Ayanaw Amogne; Selamawit Desta; Yoonjoung Choi; Solomon Shiferaw; Assefa Seme; Li Liu; Stéphane Helleringer
Journal:  BMJ Glob Health       Date:  2020-05

4.  Measuring commissioners' willingness-to-pay for community based childhood obesity prevention programmes using a discrete choice experiment.

Authors:  Edward J D Webb; Elizabeth Stamp; Michelle Collinson; Amanda J Farrin; June Stevens; Wendy Burton; Harry Rutter; Holly Schofield; Maria Bryant
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2020-10-12       Impact factor: 3.295

5.  Stated preferences for family doctor contract services: a survey of the rural elderly in Anhui Province, China.

Authors:  Cuilian Wang; Yuanyuan Gu; Linhai Zhao; Youran Zhang; Rui Zhou; Megan Gu; Lidan Wang
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2022-03-03       Impact factor: 2.692

6.  Preferences of psychotherapists for blended care in Germany: a discrete choice experiment.

Authors:  Elena A Phillips; Sebastian Himmler; Jonas Schreyögg
Journal:  BMC Psychiatry       Date:  2022-02-12       Impact factor: 3.630

7.  Exploring Community-Based Options for Reducing Youth Crime.

Authors:  Kim Edmunds; Laura Wall; Scott Brown; Andrew Searles; Anthony P Shakeshaft; Christopher M Doran
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2021-05-12       Impact factor: 3.390

8.  Investigating Patients' Preferences to Inform Drug Development Decisions: Novel Insights from a Discrete Choice Experiment in Migraine.

Authors:  Aleksandra Torbica; Carla Rognoni; Rosanna Tarricone
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2021-05-05       Impact factor: 3.390

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.  Influence of Vaccination Characteristics on COVID-19 Vaccine Acceptance Among Working-Age People in Hong Kong, China: A Discrete Choice Experiment.

Authors:  Kailu Wang; Eliza Lai-Yi Wong; Annie Wai-Ling Cheung; Peter Sen-Yung Yau; Vincent Chi-Ho Chung; Charlene Hoi-Lam Wong; Dong Dong; Samuel Yeung-Shan Wong; Eng-Kiong Yeoh
Journal:  Front Public Health       Date:  2021-12-10
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.