IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/eejocm/v50y2024ics1755534523000568.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The effect of perceived risk of false diagnosis on preferences for COVID-19 testing: Evidence from the United States

Author

Listed:
  • Rossetti, Tomás
  • Daziano, Ricardo A.

Abstract

At-home antigen (rapid) tests have been successfully deployed in many countries to quickly detect COVID-19 cases. Whereas antigen tests have multiple advantages, they tend to have higher rates of false diagnosis than polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests. Since individuals tend to process risk non-linearly, an ad-hoc method is required to adequately assess preferences for test features. In this paper, we propose a methodology based on random utility maximization and elements of prospect theory that produces willingness-to-pay estimates for different test attributes while accounting for differences between objective and perceived probabilities of false positive or negative results. We use this methodology to analyze stated preference data for COVID-19 tests in the United States. Results show that, on average, low probabilities were underestimated and mid-range probabilities were overestimated. We also found that false positive results were more burdensome than false negative outcomes, which shows that there is a degree of willful ignorance (Ehrich and Irwin, 2005) in our sample. Finally, our findings indicate that respondents tended to prefer tests with faster turn-around times and less invasive collection methods. In a case study, we show how our results can be used to assess pricing for a given test.

Suggested Citation

  • Rossetti, Tomás & Daziano, Ricardo A., 2024. "The effect of perceived risk of false diagnosis on preferences for COVID-19 testing: Evidence from the United States," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 50(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:eejocm:v:50:y:2024:i:c:s1755534523000568
    DOI: 10.1016/j.jocm.2023.100455
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1755534523000568
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.jocm.2023.100455?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.

    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:50:y:2024:i:c:s1755534523000568. 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.