IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/aphecp/v18y2020i5d10.1007_s40258-020-00554-z.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Preferences for Weight Loss Treatment Amongst Treatment-Seeking Patients with Severe Obesity: A Discrete Choice Experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Michelle Queally

    (JE Cairnes School of Business and Economics, NUI Galway)

  • Edel Doherty

    (JE Cairnes School of Business and Economics, NUI Galway)

  • Francis Finucane

    (Galway Diabetes Research Centre and HRB CRF, NUI Galway)

  • Ciaran O’Neill

    (Queens University Belfast)

Abstract

Background Treatment options for weight loss vary considerably with regard to risks and benefits, but the relative importance of treatment characteristics in patient decision-making is largely unknown, particularly amongst patients with severe obesity. Developing such services requires insight into the preferences of recipients for service attributes. Objective The objective of this study was to quantify, using a discrete choice experiment, the preferences of treatment-seeking patients with severe obesity within the Irish population regarding different attributes of various obesity treatments. Methods Within a cohort of patients with severe obesity attending a hospital-based weight management programme, patients’ attitudes to and perceptions of three distinct treatment modalities were compared to those regarding not having treatment. The treatments included a structured lifestyle modification programme, lifestyle modification alongside weight loss medication, and bariatric surgery. Results On average, patients with severe and complicated obesity who were attending a weight management programme were more enthusiastic about participating in a programme to help improve their diet and physical activity than they were about having surgery if the methods of treatment had equivalent results and costs. Conclusion The findings provide insights into preferences that might assist the development of more appropriate treatments for severe obesity.

Suggested Citation

  • Michelle Queally & Edel Doherty & Francis Finucane & Ciaran O’Neill, 2020. "Preferences for Weight Loss Treatment Amongst Treatment-Seeking Patients with Severe Obesity: A Discrete Choice Experiment," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 18(5), pages 689-698, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:aphecp:v:18:y:2020:i:5:d:10.1007_s40258-020-00554-z
    DOI: 10.1007/s40258-020-00554-z
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40258-020-00554-z
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40258-020-00554-z?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.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Laura Keaver & Laura Webber & Anne Dee & Frances Shiely & Tim Marsh & Kevin Balanda & Ivan Perry, 2013. "Application of the UK Foresight Obesity Model in Ireland: The Health and Economic Consequences of Projected Obesity Trends in Ireland," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(11), pages 1-1, November.
    2. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521747387.
    3. Mark Harrison & Dan Rigby & Caroline Vass & Terry Flynn & Jordan Louviere & Katherine Payne, 2014. "Risk as an Attribute in Discrete Choice Experiments: A Systematic Review of the Literature," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 7(2), pages 151-170, June.
    4. Dan Rigby & Mike Burton, 2006. "Modeling Disinterest and Dislike: A Bounded Bayesian Mixed Logit Model of the UK Market for GM Food," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 33(4), pages 485-509, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Blog mentions

    As found by EconAcademics.org, the blog aggregator for Economics research:
    1. Chris Sampson’s journal round-up for 19th October 2020
      by Chris Sampson in The Academic Health Economists' Blog on 2020-10-19 11:00:05

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Domínguez-Torreiro, Marcos & Soliño, Mario, 2011. "Provided and perceived status quo in choice experiments: Implications for valuing the outputs of multifunctional rural areas," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(12), pages 2523-2531.
    2. Ladenburg, Jacob & Olsen, Søren Bøye, 2014. "Augmenting short Cheap Talk scripts with a repeated Opt-Out Reminder in Choice Experiment surveys," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 39-63.
    3. Riccardo Scarpa & Mara Thiene & Francesco Marangon, 2008. "Using Flexible Taste Distributions to Value Collective Reputation for Environmentally Friendly Production Methods," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 56(2), pages 145-162, June.
    4. Abildtrup, Jens & Garcia, Serge & Olsen, Søren Bøye & Stenger, Anne, 2013. "Spatial preference heterogeneity in forest recreation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 67-77.
    5. Sergio Colombo & Nick Hanley & Jordan Louviere, 2009. "Modeling preference heterogeneity in stated choice data: an analysis for public goods generated by agriculture," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 40(3), pages 307-322, May.
    6. Bazzani, Claudia & Palma, Marco A. & Nayga, Rodolfo M., Jr., 2018. "On the use of flexible mixing distributions in WTP space: an induced value choice experiment," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 62(2), April.
    7. Cabrera, Tania & Sarasty, Oscar & Watson, Susan E. & Gonzalez, Maria-Susana & Carpio, Carlos E., 2022. "Traffic-light nutrition labeling use and demand among Ecuadorean children," 2022 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Anaheim, California 322586, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    8. Yuanyuan Gu & Richard Norman & Rosalie Viney, 2014. "Estimating Health State Utility Values From Discrete Choice Experiments—A Qaly Space Model Approach," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 23(9), pages 1098-1114, September.
    9. Tania Cabrera & Carlos E. Carpio & Oscar Sarasty & Susan E. Watson & María-Susana Gonzalez, 2023. "Traffic light nutrition labeling preferences among children," Agricultural and Food Economics, Springer;Italian Society of Agricultural Economics (SIDEA), vol. 11(1), pages 1-24, December.
    10. Laura-Lucia Richter & Melvyn Weeks, 2016. "Flexible Mixed Logit with Posterior Analysis: Exploring Willingness-to-Pay for Grid Resilience," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 1631, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
    11. Edward J. D. Webb & David Meads & Ieva Eskyte & Natalie King & Naila Dracup & Jeremy Chataway & Helen L. Ford & Joachim Marti & Sue H. Pavitt & Klaus Schmierer & Ana Manzano, 2018. "A Systematic Review of Discrete-Choice Experiments and Conjoint Analysis Studies in People with Multiple Sclerosis," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 11(4), pages 391-402, August.
    12. Grisolía, José M. & Longo, Alberto & Boeri, Marco & Hutchinson, George & Kee, Frank, 2013. "Trading off dietary choices, physical exercise and cardiovascular disease risks," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 130-138.
    13. Fontana, Magda & Iori, Martina & Nava, Consuelo Rubina, 2019. "Switching behavior in the Italian electricity retail market: Logistic and mixed effect Bayesian estimations of consumer choice," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 339-351.
    14. Balcombe, Kelvin & Chalak, Ali & Fraser, Iain, 2009. "Model selection for the mixed logit with Bayesian estimation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 57(2), pages 226-237, March.
    15. Fosgerau, Mogens & Hess, Stephane, 2009. "A comparison of methods for representing random taste heterogeneity in discrete choice models," European Transport \ Trasporti Europei, ISTIEE, Institute for the Study of Transport within the European Economic Integration, issue 42, pages 1-25.
    16. Zhifeng Gao & Ted C. Schroeder, 2009. "Consumer responses to new food quality information: are some consumers more sensitive than others?," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 40(3), pages 339-346, May.
    17. Cheng, Leilei & Yin, Changbin & Chien, Hsiaoping, 2015. "Demand for milk quantity and safety in urban China: evidence from Beijing and Harbin," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 59(2), April.
    18. Wen, Chieh-Hua & Huang, Chia-Jung & Fu, Chiang, 2020. "Incorporating continuous representation of preferences for flight departure times into stated itinerary choice modeling," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 10-20.
    19. Johannes Buggle & Thierry Mayer & Seyhun Orcan Sakalli & Mathias Thoenig, 2023. "The Refugee’s Dilemma: Evidence from Jewish Migration out of Nazi Germany," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 138(2), pages 1273-1345.
    20. Christelis, Dimitris & Dobrescu, Loretti I. & Motta, Alberto, 2020. "Early life conditions and financial risk-taking in older age," The Journal of the Economics of Ageing, Elsevier, vol. 17(C).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:spr:aphecp:v:18:y:2020:i:5:d:10.1007_s40258-020-00554-z. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.