IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v83y2013icp70-80.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The effect of adverse information and positive promotion on women's preferences for prescribed contraceptive products

Author

Listed:
  • Knox, Stephanie A.
  • Viney, Rosalie C.
  • Gu, Yuanyuan
  • Hole, Arne R.
  • Fiebig, Denzil G.
  • Street, Deborah J.
  • Haas, Marion R.
  • Weisberg, Edith
  • Bateson, Deborah

Abstract

Recent rapid growth in the range of contraceptive products has given women more choice, but also adds complexity to the resultant decision of which product to choose. This paper uses a discrete choice experiment (DCE) to investigate the effect of adverse information and positive promotion on women's stated preferences for prescribed contraceptive products. In November 2007, 527 Australian women aged 18–49 years were recruited from an online panel. Each was randomly allocated to one of three information conditions. The control group only received basic information on contraceptive products. One treatment group also received adverse information on the risks of the combined oral pill. The other group received basic information and promotional material on the vaginal ring, newly introduced into Australia and on the transdermal patch, which is unavailable in Australia. Respondents completed 32 choice sets with 3 product options where each option was described by a product label: either combined pill, minipill, injection, implant, hormonal IUD, hormonal vaginal ring, hormonal transdermal patch or copper IUD; and by the attributes: effect on acne, effect on weight, frequency of administration, contraceptive effectiveness, doctor's recommendation, effect on periods and cost. Women's choices were analysed using a generalized multinomial logit model (G-MNL) and model estimates were used to predict product shares for each information condition. The predictions indicated that adverse information did not affect women's preferences for products relative to only receiving basic information. The promotional material increased women's preferences for the transdermal patch. Women in all groups had a low preference for the vaginal ring which was not improved by promotion. The findings highlight the need for researchers to pay attention to setting the context when conducting DCEs as this can significantly affect results.

Suggested Citation

  • Knox, Stephanie A. & Viney, Rosalie C. & Gu, Yuanyuan & Hole, Arne R. & Fiebig, Denzil G. & Street, Deborah J. & Haas, Marion R. & Weisberg, Edith & Bateson, Deborah, 2013. "The effect of adverse information and positive promotion on women's preferences for prescribed contraceptive products," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 70-80.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:83:y:2013:i:c:p:70-80
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2012.12.025
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953612008489
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Andrew J Lloyd, 2003. "Threats to the estimation of benefit: are preference elicitation methods accurate?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(5), pages 393-402.
    2. Denzil G. Fiebig & Michael P. Keane & Jordan Louviere & Nada Wasi, 2010. "The Generalized Multinomial Logit Model: Accounting for Scale and Coefficient Heterogeneity," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(3), pages 393-421, 05-06.
    3. Arne Risa Hole, 2007. "A comparison of approaches to estimating confidence intervals for willingness to pay measures," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(8), pages 827-840.
    4. Meenakshi, J.V. & Banerji, A. & Manyong, Victor & Tomlins, Keith & Mittal, Nitya & Hamukwala, Priscilla, 2012. "Using a discrete choice experiment to elicit the demand for a nutritious food: Willingness-to-pay for orange maize in rural Zambia," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 62-71.
    5. Catherine Tucker & Juanjuan Zhang, 2011. "How Does Popularity Information Affect Choices? A Field Experiment," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 57(5), pages 828-842, May.
    6. 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.
    7. Hole, Arne Risa, 2008. "Modelling heterogeneity in patients' preferences for the attributes of a general practitioner appointment," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(4), pages 1078-1094, July.
    8. William Greene & David Hensher, 2010. "Does scale heterogeneity across individuals matter? An empirical assessment of alternative logit models," Transportation, Springer, vol. 37(3), pages 413-428, May.
    9. Daniel McFadden & Kenneth Train, 2000. "Mixed MNL models for discrete response," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(5), pages 447-470.
    10. Mikołaj Czajkowski & Marek Giergiczny & William H. Greene, 2012. "Learning and Fatigue Effects Revisited. The Impact of Accounting for Unobservable Preference and Scale Heterogeneity on Perceived Ordering Effects in Multiple Choice Task Discrete Choice Experiments," Working Papers 2012-08, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    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. repec:bla:jorssc:v:66:y:2017:i:5:p:997-1013 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Arne Risa Hole & Hong Il Yoo, 2017. "The use of heuristic optimization algorithms to facilitate maximum simulated likelihood estimation of random parameter logit models," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 66(5), pages 997-1013, November.

    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:eee:socmed:v:83:y:2013:i:c:p:70-80. 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: (Dana Niculescu). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    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 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.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.