Designing Choice Experiments with Many Attributes: An Application to Setting Priorities for Orthopaedic Waiting Lists
AbstractStated preference discrete choice experiments are being increasingly used to value the quality of health care services. To date in the health economics literature, discrete choice experiments have used only a relatively small number of attributes due to concerns about task complexity, non-compensatory decision rules, simplicity of experimental designs, and the costs of surveys. This may lead to omitted variable bias and reduced explanatory power when attributes have been pre-selected from a longer list. There may be situations where it is desirable to include a longer list of attributes, such as attaching weights to quality of life instruments to obtain single index scores. The aim of this paper is to examine the feasibility of using a ‘blocked attribute’ design in a DCE with 11 attributes. This method allocates the 11 attributes across three separate experimental designs and pools the data for analysis. We examine this issue in the context of attaching weights to a disease specific quality of life instrument used to prioritise orthopaedic waiting lists in Victorian hospitals. We produce a single index measure of utility for health states of patients, bounded between zero and one. The use of such a design seems feasible, although issues remain to be resolved about how the ranking should be used in practice to set priorities for waiting lists.
Download InfoIf 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.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, The University of Melbourne in its series Melbourne Institute Working Paper Series with number wp2006n24.
Length: 25 pages
Date of creation: Oct 2006
Date of revision:
Contact details of provider:
Postal: Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, The University of Melbourne, Victoria 3010 Australia
Phone: +61 3 8344 2100
Fax: +61 3 8344 2111
Web page: http://www.melbourneinstitute.com/
More information through EDIRC
Other versions of this item:
- Julia Witt & Anthony Scott & Richard H. Osborne, 2009. "Designing choice experiments with many attributes. An application to setting priorities for orthopaedic waiting lists," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(6), pages 681-696.
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.:
- Brownston, David & Bunch, David S. & Train, Kenneth, 1999.
"Joint mixed logit models of stated and revealed preferences for alternative-fuel vehicles,"
University of California Transportation Center, Working Papers
qt7rf7s3nx, University of California Transportation Center.
- Brownstone, David & Bunch, David S. & Train, Kenneth, 2000. "Joint mixed logit models of stated and revealed preferences for alternative-fuel vehicles," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 34(5), pages 315-338, June.
- Brownstone, David & Bunch, David S & Train, Kenneth, 1999. "Joint mixed logit models of stated and revealed preferences for alternative-fuel vehicles," University of California Transportation Center, Working Papers qt45f996hh, University of California Transportation Center.
- 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, December.
- Huber, Joel & Train, Kenneth, 2000.
"On the Similarity of Classical and Bayesian Estimates of Individual Mean Partworths,"
Department of Economics, Working Paper Series
qt7zm4f51b, Department of Economics, Institute for Business and Economic Research, UC Berkeley.
- Joel Huber & Kenneth Train, 2001. "On the Similarity of Classical and Bayesian Estimates of Individual Mean Partworths," Econometrics 0012003, EconWPA.
- Joel Huber and Kenneth Train., 2000. "On the Similarity of Classical and Bayesian Estimates of Individual Mean Partworths," Economics Working Papers E00-289, University of California at Berkeley.
- 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.
- Hensher, David & Louviere, Jordan & Swait, Joffre, 1998. "Combining sources of preference data," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 89(1-2), pages 197-221, November.
- Ryan, Mandy & Netten, Ann & Skatun, Diane & Smith, Paul, 2006. "Using discrete choice experiments to estimate a preference-based measure of outcome--An application to social care for older people," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(5), pages 927-944, September.
- Train,Kenneth E., 2009.
"Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation,"
Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555, December.
- Scott, Anthony, 2002. "Identifying and analysing dominant preferences in discrete choice experiments: An application in health care," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 23(3), pages 383-398, June.
- McKenzie, Lynda & Cairns, John & Osman, Liesl, 2001. "Symptom-based outcome measures for asthma: the use of discrete choice methods to assess patient preferences," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 57(3), pages 193-204, September.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Jenny Chen).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.