Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login

Empirical investigation of experimental design properties of discrete choice experiments in health care

Contents:

Author Info

  • Rosalie Viney

    (Centre for Health Economics Research and Evaluation, Faculty of Business, University of Technology, Sydney, Australia)

  • Elizabeth Savage

    (Centre for Health Economics Research and Evaluation, Faculty of Business, University of Technology, Sydney, Australia)

  • Jordan Louviere

    (Centre for Study of Choice and Centre for Health Economics Research and Evaluation, School of Marketing, Faculty of Business, University of Technology, Sydney, Australia)

Abstract

Experimental design is critical to valid inference from the results of discrete choice experiments (DCEs). In health economics, DCEs have placed limited emphasis on experimental design, typically employing relatively small fractional factorial designs, which allow only strictly linear additive utility functions to be estimated. The extensive literature on optimal experimental design outside health economics has proposed potentially desirable design properties, such as orthogonality, utility balance and level balance. However, there are trade-offs between these properties and emphasis on some properties may increase the random variability in responses, potentially biasing parameter estimates. This study investigates empirically the design properties of DCEs, in particular, the optimal method of combining alternatives in the choice set. The study involves a forced choice between two alternatives (treatment and non-treatment for a hypothetical health care condition), each with three, four-level, alternative-specific attributes. Three experimental design approaches are investigated: a standard six-attribute, orthogonal main effects design; a design that combines alternatives to achieve utility balance, ensuring no alternatives are dominated; and a design that combines alternatives randomly. The different experimental designs did not impact on the underlying parameter estimates, but imposing utility balance increases the random variability of responses. Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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://hdl.handle.net/10.1002/hec.981
File Function: Link to full text; subscription required
Download Restriction: no

Bibliographic Info

Article provided by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. in its journal Health Economics.

Volume (Year): 14 (2005)
Issue (Month): 4 ()
Pages: 349-362

as in new window
Handle: RePEc:wly:hlthec:v:14:y:2005:i:4:p:349-362

Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jhome/5749

Related research

Keywords:

References

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
as in new window
  1. Fredrik Carlsson & Peter Martinsson, 2003. "Design techniques for stated preference methods in health economics," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(4), pages 281-294.
  2. Louviere,Jordan J. & Hensher,David A. & Swait,Joffre D. With contributions by-Name:Adamowicz,Wiktor, 2000. "Stated Choice Methods," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521788304, October.
  3. Tara Maddala & Kathryn A. Phillips & F. Reed Johnson, 2003. "An experiment on simplifying conjoint analysis designs for measuring preferences," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(12), pages 1035-1047.
  4. Zafar Hakim & Dev S. Pathak, 1999. "Modelling the EuroQol data: a comparison of discrete choice conjoint and conditional preference modelling," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 8(2), pages 103-116.
  5. Farrar, Shelley & Ryan, Mandy & Ross, Donald & Ludbrook, Anne, 2000. "Using discrete choice modelling in priority setting: an application to clinical service developments," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 50(1), pages 63-75, January.
  6. Mandy Ryan & Jenny Hughes, 1997. "Using Conjoint Analysis to Assess Women's Preferences for Miscarriage Management," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 6(3), pages 261-273.
  7. Stirling Bryan & Martin Buxton & Robert Sheldon & Alison Grant, 1998. "Magnetic resonance imaging for the investigation of knee injuries: an investigation of preferences," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 7(7), pages 595-603.
  8. Propper, Carol, 1990. "Contingent Valuation of Time Spent on NHS Waiting Lists," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 100(400), pages 193-99, Supplemen.
  9. Shelley Farrar & Mandy Ryan, 1999. "Response-ordering effects: a methodological issue in conjoint analysis," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 8(1), pages 75-79.
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 in new window

Cited by:
  1. Emily Lancsar & Jordan Louviere, 2008. "Conducting Discrete Choice Experiments to Inform Healthcare Decision Making," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 26(8), pages 661-677, August.
  2. Kerr, Geoffrey N. & Sharp, Basil M.H., 2009. "Efficiency benefits of choice model experimental design updating: a case study," 2009 Conference (53rd), February 11-13, 2009, Cairns, Australia 47623, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
  3. Kerr, Geoffrey N. & Sharp, Basil M.H., 2010. "Choice experiment adaptive design benefits: a case study," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 54(4), December.
  4. Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Rose, John M., 2011. "Experimental design influences on stated choice outputs: An empirical study in air travel choice," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 63-79, January.
  5. Hall, Jane & Fiebig, Denzil G. & King, Madeleine T. & Hossain, Ishrat & Louviere, Jordan J., 2006. "What influences participation in genetic carrier testing?: Results from a discrete choice experiment," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(3), pages 520-537, May.
  6. Emily Lancsar & Cam Donaldson, 2005. "Discrete choice experiments in health economics," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer, vol. 6(4), pages 314-316, December.
  7. Julie Ratcliffe & John Brazier & Aki Tsuchiya & Tara Symonds & Martin Brown, 2009. "Using DCE and ranking data to estimate cardinal values for health states for deriving a preference-based single index from the sexual quality of life questionnaire," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(11), pages 1261-1276.
  8. Araña, Jorge E. & León, Carmelo J. & Hanemann, Michael W., 2008. "Emotions and decision rules in discrete choice experiments for valuing health care programmes for the elderly," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 753-769, May.
  9. 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.
  10. Anderson, C. Leigh & Cullen, Alison & Stamoulis, Kostas, 2008. "Preference variability along the policy chain in Vietnam," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 37(5), pages 1729-1745, October.
  11. Rosalie Viney & Elizabeth Savage, 2006. "Health care policy evaluation: empirical analysis of the restrictions implied by Quality Adjusted Life Years, CHERE Working Paper 2006/10," Working Papers 2006/10, CHERE, University of Technology, Sydney.

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:wly:hlthec:v:14:y:2005:i:4:p:349-362. 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: (Wiley-Blackwell Digital Licensing) or (Christopher F. Baum).

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.