Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

Best worst discrete choice experiments in health: Methods and an application

Contents:

Author Info

  • Lancsar, Emily
  • Louviere, Jordan
  • Donaldson, Cam
  • Currie, Gillian
  • Burgess, Leonie
Registered author(s):

    Abstract

    A key objective of discrete choice experiments is to obtain sufficient quantity of high quality choice data to estimate choice models to be used to explore various policy/clinically relevant issues. This paper focuses on a relatively new form of choice experiment, ‘Best Worst Discrete Choice Experiments’ (BWDCEs) and their relevance to health research as a new way to meet such an objective. We explain what BWDCEs are, how and when to apply them and we present several analytical approaches to model the resulting data. We demonstrate this preference elicitation approach in an empirical application exploring preferences of 898 members of the general public in Edmonton and Calgary, Canada for treatment of cardiac arrest occurring in a public place and show the gains achieved compared to traditional analysis of first best data. We suggest that BWDCEs are a valuable way to investigate preferences in the health sector and discuss implications for task design, analysis and areas for future research.

    Download Info

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953612007290
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

    Bibliographic Info

    Article provided by Elsevier in its journal Social Science & Medicine.

    Volume (Year): 76 (2013)
    Issue (Month): C ()
    Pages: 74-82

    as in new window
    Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:76:y:2013:i:c:p:74-82

    Contact details of provider:
    Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description

    Order Information:
    Postal: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/supportfaq.cws_home/regional
    Web: http://www.elsevier.com/orderme/journalorderform.cws_home/315/journalorderform1/orderooc/id=654&ref=654_01_ooc_1&version=01

    Related research

    Keywords: Canada; Best worst discrete choice experiments; Best worst scaling; Ranking; Sequential best worst; Heterogeneity; Cardiac arrest;

    References

    No references listed on IDEAS
    You can help add them by filling out this form.

    Citations

    Blog mentions

    As found by EconAcademics.org, the blog aggregator for Economics research:
    1. #HEJC for 07/01/2013
      by academichealtheconomists in The Academic Health Economists' Blog on 2013-01-01 21:00:14
    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as in new window

    Cited by:
    1. Glenka, Klaus & Eorya, Vera & Colombo, Sergio & Barnes, Andrew, 2014. "Adoption of greenhouse gas mitigation in agriculture: an analysis of dairy farmers’ preferences and adoption behaviour," 88th Annual Conference, April 9-11, 2014, AgroParisTech, Paris, France 170358, Agricultural Economics Society.
    2. Greiner, Romy & Bliemer, Michiel & Ballweg, Julie, 2014. "Design considerations of a choice experiment to estimate likely participation by north Australian pastoralists in contractual biodiversity conservation," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 10(C), pages 34-45.
    3. Greiner, Romy, 2014. "Willingness of north Australian pastoralists and graziers to participate in contractual biodiversity conservation," 2014 Conference (58th), February 4-7, 2014, Port Maquarie, Australia 165839, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    4. Yangui, A. & Akaichi, F. & Costa-Font, M. & Gil, J. M., 2014. "Do experimental protocols in Conjoint Analysis matter in non Hypothetical settings?," 88th Annual Conference, April 9-11, 2014, AgroParisTech, Paris, France 170345, Agricultural Economics Society.

    Lists

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:76:y:2013:i:c:p:74-82. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Zhang, Lei).

    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.

    If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

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