Caroline Vass1, Dan Rigby2, Katherine Payne3. 1. Manchester Centre for Health Economics, The University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK. caroline.vass@manchester.ac.uk. 2. Department of Economics, The University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK. 3. Manchester Centre for Health Economics, The University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Risk is increasingly used as an attribute in discrete choice experiments (DCEs). However, risk and probabilities are complex concepts that can be open to misinterpretation, potentially undermining the robustness of DCEs as a valuation method. This study aimed to understand how respondents made benefit-risk trade-offs in a DCE and if these were affected by the communication of the risk attributes. METHODS:Female members of the public were recruited via local advertisements to participate in think-aloud interviews when completing a DCE eliciting their preferences for a hypothetical breast screening programme described by three attributes: probability of detecting a cancer; risk of unnecessary follow-up; and cost of screening. Women were randomised to receive risk information as either (1) percentages or (2) percentages and icon arrays. Interviews were digitally recorded then transcribed to generate qualitative data for thematic analysis. RESULTS:Nineteen women completed the interviews (icon arrays n = 9; percentages n = 10). Analysis revealed four key themes where women made references to (1) the nature of the task; (2) their feelings; (3) their experiences, for instance making analogies to similar risks; and (4) economic phenomena such as opportunity costs and discounting. CONCLUSION: Most women completed the DCE in line with economic theory; however, violations were identified. Women appeared to visualise risk whether they received icon arrays or percentages only. Providing clear instructions and graphics to aid interpretation of risk and qualitative piloting to verify understanding is recommended. Further investigation is required to determine if the process of verbalising thoughts changes the behaviour of respondents.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Risk is increasingly used as an attribute in discrete choice experiments (DCEs). However, risk and probabilities are complex concepts that can be open to misinterpretation, potentially undermining the robustness of DCEs as a valuation method. This study aimed to understand how respondents made benefit-risk trade-offs in a DCE and if these were affected by the communication of the risk attributes. METHODS: Female members of the public were recruited via local advertisements to participate in think-aloud interviews when completing a DCE eliciting their preferences for a hypothetical breast screening programme described by three attributes: probability of detecting a cancer; risk of unnecessary follow-up; and cost of screening. Women were randomised to receive risk information as either (1) percentages or (2) percentages and icon arrays. Interviews were digitally recorded then transcribed to generate qualitative data for thematic analysis. RESULTS: Nineteen women completed the interviews (icon arrays n = 9; percentages n = 10). Analysis revealed four key themes where women made references to (1) the nature of the task; (2) their feelings; (3) their experiences, for instance making analogies to similar risks; and (4) economic phenomena such as opportunity costs and discounting. CONCLUSION: Most women completed the DCE in line with economic theory; however, violations were identified. Women appeared to visualise risk whether they received icon arrays or percentages only. Providing clear instructions and graphics to aid interpretation of risk and qualitative piloting to verify understanding is recommended. Further investigation is required to determine if the process of verbalising thoughts changes the behaviour of respondents.
Authors: Steven J Durning; Anthony R Artino; Thomas J Beckman; John Graner; Cees van der Vleuten; Eric Holmboe; Lambert Schuwirth Journal: Med Teach Date: 2013-06-27 Impact factor: 3.650
Authors: Gerd Gigerenzer; Wolfgang Gaissmaier; Elke Kurz-Milcke; Lisa M Schwartz; Steven Woloshin Journal: Psychol Sci Public Interest Date: 2007-11-01
Authors: Federico Augustovski; Andrea Beratarrechea; Vilma Irazola; Fernando Rubinstein; Pablo Tesolin; Juan Gonzalez; Verónica Lencina; Marina Scolnik; Christian Waimann; David Navarta; Gustavo Citera; Enrique R Soriano Journal: Value Health Date: 2013 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: Juliet A Usher-Smith; Katie M Mills; Christiane Riedinger; Catherine L Saunders; Lise M Helsingen; Lyubov Lytvyn; Maaike Buskermolen; Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar; Michael Bretthauer; Gordon Guyatt; Simon J Griffin Journal: PLoS One Date: 2021-02-16 Impact factor: 3.240