Estimating Patients' Preferences for Medical Devices: Does the Number of Profile in Choice Experiments Matter?
AbstractBackground: Most applications of choice-based conjoint analysis in health use choice tasks with only two profiles, while those in marketing routinely use three or more. This study reports on a randomized trial comparing paired with triplet profile choice formats focused on measuring patient preference for hearing aids. Methods: Respondents with hearing loss were drawn from a nationally representative cohort, completed identical surveys incorporating a conjoint analysis, but were randomized to choice tasks with two or three profiles. Baseline differences between the two groups were explored using ANOVA and chi-square tests. The primary outcomes of differences in estimated preferences were explored using t-tests, likelihood ratio tests, and analysis of individual-level models estimated with ordinary least squares. Results: 500 respondents were recruited. 127 had no hearing loss, 28 had profound loss and 22 declined to participate and were not analyzed. Of the remaining 323 participants, 146 individuals were randomized to the pairs and 177 to triplets. The only significant difference between the groups was time to complete the survey (11.5 and 21 minutes respectively). Pairs and triplets produced identical rankings of attribute importance but homogeneity was rejected (P
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 National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc in its series NBER Working Papers with number 17482.
Date of creation: Oct 2011
Date of revision:
Contact details of provider:
Postal: National Bureau of Economic Research, 1050 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02138, U.S.A.
Web page: http://www.nber.org
More information through EDIRC
Find related papers by JEL classification:
- C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
- I11 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Analysis of Health Care Markets
- I18 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Government Policy; Regulation; Public Health
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
- NEP-ALL-2011-10-15 (All new papers)
- NEP-EXP-2011-10-15 (Experimental Economics)
- NEP-HEA-2011-10-15 (Health Economics)
You can help add them by filling out this form.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ().
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.