IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/hlthec/v28y2019i11p1308-1319.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Sequence effects in time trade‐off valuation of hypothetical health states

Author

Listed:
  • José Luis Pinto‐Prades
  • Neil McHugh
  • Cam Donaldson
  • Sarkis Manoukian

Abstract

Choice‐based stated preference methods, such as time trade‐offs (TTOs), are used to establish health state utilities informing healthcare allocation. However, little is known about the presence of (position‐dependent and precedent‐dependent) sequence effects in the valuation of health states, despite techniques requiring respondents to evaluate several health states in a sequence. This paper is the first to explicitly test for the presence of sequence effects in the health domain using a new explanation based on contrast effects and preference imprecision; the implication being that randomisation cannot avoid sequence effects. Six TTO questions were designed using the EQ‐5D‐3L descriptive system. These were grouped into two blocks of three and within each block four sequences were used. In an online survey, 1,197 Spanish respondents answered one grouping of three TTO questions. Results indicate that sequence effects can affect preferences as utilities of health states are biased downwards if preceded by a better health state and biased upwards if preceded by a worse health state. This study informs our understanding of how context effects interact with preference elicitation methods, which is essential for interpreting survey results used to inform policy.

Suggested Citation

  • José Luis Pinto‐Prades & Neil McHugh & Cam Donaldson & Sarkis Manoukian, 2019. "Sequence effects in time trade‐off valuation of hypothetical health states," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(11), pages 1308-1319, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:hlthec:v:28:y:2019:i:11:p:1308-1319
    DOI: 10.1002/hec.3942
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.3942
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/hec.3942?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. DeShazo, J. R., 2002. "Designing Transactions without Framing Effects in Iterative Question Formats," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 43(3), pages 360-385, May.
    2. Day, Brett & Pinto Prades, Jose-Luis, 2010. "Ordering anomalies in choice experiments," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 59(3), pages 271-285, May.
    3. McNair, Ben J. & Bennett, Jeff & Hensher, David A., 2011. "A comparison of responses to single and repeated discrete choice questions," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 554-571, September.
    4. Paul Dolan & Claire Gudex & Paul Kind & Alan Williams, 1995. "A social tariff for EuroQol: results from a UK general population survey," Working Papers 138chedp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
    5. Laura Ternent & Aki Tsuchiya, 2013. "A Note on the Expected Biases in Conventional Iterative Health State Valuation Protocols," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 33(4), pages 544-546, May.
    6. Uri Simonsohn, 2006. "New Yorkers Commute More Everywhere: Contrast Effects in the Field," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 88(1), pages 1-9, February.
    7. Daniel McFadden & Kenneth Train (ed.), 2017. "Contingent Valuation of Environmental Goods," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 17527.
    8. Dan Ariely & George Loewenstein & Drazen Prelec, 2003. ""Coherent Arbitrariness": Stable Demand Curves Without Stable Preferences," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 118(1), pages 73-106.
    9. Day, Brett & Bateman, Ian J. & Carson, Richard T. & Dupont, Diane & Louviere, Jordan J. & Morimoto, Sanae & Scarpa, Riccardo & Wang, Paul, 2012. "Ordering effects and choice set awareness in repeat-response stated preference studies," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 63(1), pages 73-91.
    10. Uri Simonsohn & George Loewenstein, 2006. "Mistake #37: The Effect of Previously Encountered Prices on Current Housing Demand," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 116(508), pages 175-199, January.
    11. Jerry Hausman, 2012. "Contingent Valuation: From Dubious to Hopeless," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 26(4), pages 43-56, Fall.
    12. Amos Tversky & Itamar Simonson, 1993. "Context-Dependent Preferences," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 39(10), pages 1179-1189, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Daniel R. Petrolia & Matthew G. Interis & Joonghyun Hwang, 2014. "America's Wetland? A National Survey of Willingness to Pay for Restoration of Louisiana's Coastal Wetlands," Marine Resource Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 29(1), pages 17-37.
    2. McNair, Ben J. & Hensher, David A. & Bennett, Jeff, 2010. "Modelling heterogeneity in response behaviour towards a sequence of discrete choice questions: a latent class approach," MPRA Paper 23427, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. Parsons, George & Yan, Lingxiao, 2021. "Anchoring on visual cues in a stated preference survey: The case of siting offshore wind power projects," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 38(C).
    4. Leong, Waiyan & Hensher, David A., 2012. "Embedding multiple heuristics into choice models: An exploratory analysis," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 5(3), pages 131-144.
    5. Balbontin, Camila & Hensher, David A. & Collins, Andrew T., 2019. "How to better represent preferences in choice models: The contributions to preference heterogeneity attributable to the presence of process heterogeneity," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 218-248.
    6. Nguyen, Thanh Cong & Le, Hoa Thu & Nguyen, Hang Dieu & Ngo, Mai Thanh & Nguyen, Hong Quang, 2021. "Examining ordering effects and strategic behaviour in a discrete choice experiment," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 394-413.
    7. Rocamora, Beatriz & Colombo, Sergio & Glenk, Klaus, 2014. "El impacto de las respuestas inconsistentes en las medidas de bienestar estimadas con el método del experimento de elección," Economia Agraria y Recursos Naturales, Spanish Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 14(02), pages 1-22, December.
    8. Daniel R. Petrolia & Matthew G. Interis & Joonghyun Hwang, 2018. "Single-Choice, Repeated-Choice, and Best-Worst Scaling Elicitation Formats: Do Results Differ and by How Much?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 69(2), pages 365-393, February.
    9. Anna Bindler & Randi Hjalmarsson, 2019. "Path Dependency in Jury Decision Making," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 17(6), pages 1971-2017.
    10. Day, Brett & Bateman, Ian J. & Carson, Richard T. & Dupont, Diane & Louviere, Jordan J. & Morimoto, Sanae & Scarpa, Riccardo & Wang, Paul, 2012. "Ordering effects and choice set awareness in repeat-response stated preference studies," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 63(1), pages 73-91.
    11. Rheinberger, Christoph M. & Schläpfer, Felix & Lobsiger, Michael, 2017. "A Novel Approach to Estimating the Demand Value of Road Safety," ETA: Economic Theory and Applications 254045, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    12. Rheinberger, Christoph M. & Schläpfer, Felix & Lobsiger, Michael, 2018. "A novel approach to estimating the demand value of public safety," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 285-305.
    13. Campbell, Danny & Boeri, Marco & Doherty, Edel & George Hutchinson, W., 2015. "Learning, fatigue and preference formation in discrete choice experiments," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 345-363.
    14. Ben McNair & David Hensher & Jeff Bennett, 2012. "Modelling Heterogeneity in Response Behaviour Towards a Sequence of Discrete Choice Questions: A Probabilistic Decision Process Model," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 51(4), pages 599-616, April.
    15. Meyerhoff, Jürgen & Glenk, Klaus, 2015. "Learning how to choose—effects of instructional choice sets in discrete choice experiments," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 122-142.
    16. Tomasz Gajderowicz & Gabriela Grotkowska, 2019. "Polarization of Tastes: Stated Preference Stability in Sequential Discrete Choices," European Research Studies Journal, European Research Studies Journal, vol. 0(4), pages 70-87.
    17. Gabriela Scheufele & Jeff Bennett, 2013. "Effects of alternative elicitation formats in discrete choice experiments," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 57(2), pages 214-233, April.
    18. Nicolas Krucien & Amiram Gafni & Nathalie Pelletier‐Fleury, 2015. "Empirical Testing of the External Validity of a Discrete Choice Experiment to Determine Preferred Treatment Option: The Case of Sleep Apnea," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 24(8), pages 951-965, August.
    19. Robert J. Johnston & Kevin J. Boyle & Wiktor (Vic) Adamowicz & Jeff Bennett & Roy Brouwer & Trudy Ann Cameron & W. Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Riccardo Scarpa & Roger Tourangeau & Ch, 2017. "Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(2), pages 319-405.
    20. Dan Ariely & Kristina Shampan'er, 2006. "How small is zero price? : the true value of free products," Working Papers 06-16, Federal Reserve Bank of Boston.

    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:wly:hlthec:v:28:y:2019:i:11:p:1308-1319. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jhome/5749 .

    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.