IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/pharmo/v2y2018i1d10.1007_s41669-017-0025-4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Application of Discrete-Choice Experiment Methods in Tobacco Control: A Systematic Review

Author

Listed:
  • Kabindra Regmi

    (PAPRSB Institute of Health Science, University Brunei Darussalam
    Centre for Innovative Research in Public Health)

  • Dinesh Kaphle

    (University of KwaZulu-Natal)

  • Sabina Timilsina

    (Centre for Innovative Research in Public Health
    Gadjah Mada University, Gedung PAU UGM)

  • Nik Annie Afiqah Tuha

    (PAPRSB Institute of Health Science, University Brunei Darussalam
    Imperial College London)

Abstract

Background Economic evidence relating to tobacco control is generally derived from the cost effectiveness of smoking-cessation programs or the economic impact of tobacco-induced disease, based on revealed-preference data. However, empirical estimates from stated-preference data on tobacco users’ preferences, smoking behaviour and smoking cessation aids using analytical techniques such as discrete-choice experiments (DCEs) could be important for policy decision making in tobacco control. Objectives Our objective was to review the practice and utility of DCE methodology across nicotine- and tobacco-related issues, particularly smoking and smoking-cessation behaviour, anti-smoking policies and preferences for smoking-cessation aids. Methods We searched the PubMed, MEDLINE and ECONLIT databases for full-text original research articles on tobacco-related issues published between January 2000 and April 2016 that used a DCE method. We summarised the evidence and methodological characteristics of DCEs according to Lancsar and Louviere, 2008. Results Our review of the 12 eligible studies showed that DCE methodology was used to elicit smoker preferences and to evaluate tobacco-control policies. The majority of the studies were published in the last 5 years. The areas of application were smoking cessation, smoking behaviour, electronic cigarette use, water-pipe smoking and tobacco packaging. Monetary attributes were the most influential attributes in all studies. The design of the DCEs varied. Conclusion DCE studies of tobacco-related issues were methodologically consistent with guidelines proposed for conducting health-related DCEs.

Suggested Citation

  • Kabindra Regmi & Dinesh Kaphle & Sabina Timilsina & Nik Annie Afiqah Tuha, 2018. "Application of Discrete-Choice Experiment Methods in Tobacco Control: A Systematic Review," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 2(1), pages 5-17, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:pharmo:v:2:y:2018:i:1:d:10.1007_s41669-017-0025-4
    DOI: 10.1007/s41669-017-0025-4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s41669-017-0025-4
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s41669-017-0025-4?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kajal Lahiri & Jae G. Song, 2000. "The effect of smoking on health using a sequential self‐selection model," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 9(6), pages 491-511, September.
    2. Jane Hall & Patricia Kenny & Madeleine King & Jordan Louviere & Rosalie Viney & Angela Yeoh, 2002. "Using stated preference discrete choice modelling to evaluate the introduction of varicella vaccination," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(5), pages 457-465, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Buckell, John & White, Justin S. & Shang, Ce, 2020. "Can incentive-compatibility reduce hypothetical bias in smokers’ experimental choice behavior? A randomized discrete choice experiment," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 37(C).
    2. Sabina De Rosis & Ilaria Corazza & Francesca Pennucci, 2020. "Physical Activity in the Daily Life of Adolescents: Factors Affecting Healthy Choices from a Discrete Choice Experiment," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(18), pages 1-23, September.
    3. John Buckell & Vrinda Vasavada & Sarah Wordsworth & Dean A. Regier & Matthew Quaife, 2022. "Utility maximization versus regret minimization in health choice behavior: Evidence from four datasets," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(2), pages 363-381, February.
    4. Ce Shang & James Nonnemaker & Kymberle Sterling & Jessica Sobolewski & Scott R. Weaver, 2021. "Impact of Little Cigars and Cigarillos Packaging Features on Product Preference," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(21), pages 1-13, October.
    5. David A. J. Meester & Stephane Hess & John Buckell & Thomas O. Hancock, 2023. "Can decision field theory enhance our understanding of health‐based choices? Evidence from risky health behaviors," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 32(8), pages 1710-1732, August.
    6. Elizabeth A Asiago-Reddy & John McPeak & Riccardo Scarpa & Amy Braksmajer & Nicola Ruszkowski & James McMahon & Andrew S London, 2022. "Perceived access to PrEP as a critical step in engagement: A qualitative analysis and discrete choice experiment among young men who have sex with men," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(1), pages 1-21, January.
    7. John Buckell & David A Hensher & Stephane Hess, 2021. "Kicking the habit is hard: A hybrid choice model investigation into the role of addiction in smoking behavior," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(1), pages 3-19, January.
    8. Vikas Soekhai & Esther W. Bekker-Grob & Alan R. Ellis & Caroline M. Vass, 2019. "Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: Past, Present and Future," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 37(2), pages 201-226, February.
    9. Rebecca C. A. Tobi & Francesca Harris & Ritu Rana & Kerry A. Brown & Matthew Quaife & Rosemary Green, 2019. "Sustainable Diet Dimensions. Comparing Consumer Preference for Nutrition, Environmental and Social Responsibility Food Labelling: A Systematic Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(23), pages 1-22, November.

    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. Joachim Marti, 2012. "Assessing preferences for improved smoking cessation medications: a discrete choice experiment," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 13(5), pages 533-548, October.
    2. Matloob Piracha & Massimiliano Tani & Florin Vadean, 2012. "Immigrant over- and under-education: the role of home country labour market experience," IZA Journal of Migration and Development, Springer;Forschungsinstitut zur Zukunft der Arbeit GmbH (IZA), vol. 1(1), pages 1-21, December.
    3. Lancsar, Emily & Louviere, Jordan & Flynn, Terry, 2007. "Several methods to investigate relative attribute impact in stated preference experiments," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 64(8), pages 1738-1753, April.
    4. Massimiliano Bratti & Alfonso Miranda, 2010. "Non‐pecuniary returns to higher education: the effect on smoking intensity in the UK," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 19(8), pages 906-920, August.
    5. Galizzi Matteo M. & Miraldo Marisa, 2017. "Are You What You Eat? Healthy Behaviour and Risk Preferences," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 17(1), pages 1-25, February.
    6. Grewal, Ini & Lewis, Jane & Flynn, Terry & Brown, Jackie & Bond, John & Coast, Joanna, 2006. "Developing attributes for a generic quality of life measure for older people: Preferences or capabilities?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 62(8), pages 1891-1901, April.
    7. Alessandro Mengoni & Chiara Seghieri & Sabina Nuti, 2013. "The application of discrete choice experiments in health economics: a systematic review of the literature," Working Papers 201301, Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna of Pisa, Istituto di Management.
    8. Kjaer, Trine & Gyrd-Hansen, Dorte, 2008. "Preference heterogeneity and choice of cardiac rehabilitation program: Results from a discrete choice experiment," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 85(1), pages 124-132, January.
    9. John F. P. Bridges & Jui-Hua Tsai & Ellen Janssen & Norah L. Crossnohere & Ryan Fischer & Holly Peay, 2019. "How Do Members of the Duchenne and Becker Muscular Dystrophy Community Perceive a Discrete-Choice Experiment Incorporating Uncertain Treatment Benefit? An Application of Research as an Event," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 12(2), pages 247-257, April.
    10. Waleska Sigüernza & Petr Mariel, 2013. "Valoración económica de los servicios sanitarios en la Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco," Hacienda Pública Española / Review of Public Economics, IEF, vol. 207(4), pages 71-99, December.
    11. Vadean, Florin & Piracha, Matloob, 2009. "Circular Migration or Permanent Return: What Determines Different Forms of Migration?," IZA Discussion Papers 4287, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    12. Jérôme Adda & Valérie Lechene, 2013. "Health Selection and the Effect of Smoking on Mortality," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 115(3), pages 902-931, July.
    13. Md Z Sadique & Nancy Devlin & William J Edmunds & David Parkin, 2013. "The Effect of Perceived Risks on the Demand for Vaccination: Results from a Discrete Choice Experiment," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(2), pages 1-9, February.
    14. Emily Lancsar & Cam Donaldson, 2005. "Discrete choice experiments in health economics: Distinguishing between the method and its application," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 6(4), pages 314-316, December.
    15. Anna Merino, 2003. "Eliciting consumers preferences using stated preference discrete choice models: Contingent ranking versus choice experiment," Working Papers, Research Center on Health and Economics 705, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
    16. 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.
    17. Kajal Lahiri & Xian Li, 2020. "Smoking Behavior of Older Adults: A Panel Data Analysis Using HRS," Journal of Quantitative Economics, Springer;The Indian Econometric Society (TIES), vol. 18(3), pages 495-523, September.
    18. Harry Telser & Peter Zweifel, 2007. "Validity of discrete-choice experiments evidence for health risk reduction," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 39(1), pages 69-78.
    19. Jeffrey E. Harris & Beatriz Lopez-Valcarcel, 2004. "Asymmetric Social Interaction in Economics: Cigarette Smoking Among Young People in the United States, 1992-1999," NBER Working Papers 10409, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    20. LUYTEN, Jeroen & KESSELS, Roselinde & GOOS, Peter & BEUTELS, Philippe, 2013. "Public preferences for prioritizing preventive and curative health care interventions: A discrete choice experiment," Working Papers 2013032, University of Antwerp, Faculty of Business and Economics.

    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:pharmo:v:2:y:2018:i:1:d:10.1007_s41669-017-0025-4. 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.