IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/eejocm/v38y2021ics1755534520300622.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

What works better for preference elicitation among older people? Cognitive burden of discrete choice experiment and case 2 best-worst scaling in an online setting

Author

Listed:
  • Himmler, Sebastian
  • Soekhai, Vikas
  • van Exel, Job
  • Brouwer, Werner

Abstract

To appropriately weight dimensions of quality of life instruments for health economic evaluations, population and patient preferences need to be elicited. Two commonly used elicitation methods for this purpose are discrete choice experiments (DCE) and case 2 best-worst scaling (BWS). These methods differ in terms of their cognitive burden, which is especially relevant when eliciting preferences among older people. Using a randomised experiment with respondents from an online panel, this paper examines the cognitive burden associated with colour-coded and level overlapped DCE, colour-coded BWS, and ‘standard’ BWS choice tasks in a complex health state valuation setting. Our sample included 469 individuals aged 65 and above. Based on both revealed and stated cognitive burden, we found that the DCE tasks were less cognitively burdensome than case 2 BWS. Colour coding case 2 BWS cannot be recommended as its effect on cognitive burden was less clear and the colour coding lead to undesired choice heuristics. Our results have implications for future health state valuations of complex quality of life instruments and at least serve as an example of assessing cognitive burden associated with different types of choice experiments.

Suggested Citation

  • Himmler, Sebastian & Soekhai, Vikas & van Exel, Job & Brouwer, Werner, 2021. "What works better for preference elicitation among older people? Cognitive burden of discrete choice experiment and case 2 best-worst scaling in an online setting," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 38(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:eejocm:v:38:y:2021:i:c:s1755534520300622
    DOI: 10.1016/j.jocm.2020.100265
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1755534520300622
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.jocm.2020.100265?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Mäntymaa, Erkki & Artell, Janne & Forsman, Jukka T. & Juutinen, Artti, 2023. "Is it more important to increase carbon sequestration, biodiversity, or jobs? A case study of citizens' preferences for forest policy in Finland," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 154(C).
    2. C. M. Dieteren & I. Bonfrer & W. B. F. Brouwer & J. Exel, 2023. "Public preferences for policies promoting a healthy diet: a discrete choice experiment," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 24(9), pages 1429-1440, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:eejocm:v:38:y:2021:i:c:s1755534520300622. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.journals.elsevier.com/journal-of-choice-modelling .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.