IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v29y2009i6p707-715.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Does One Size Fit All? Investigating Heterogeneity in Men’s Preferences for Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia Treatment Using Mixed Logit Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Barbara Eberth

    (Health Economics Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK, b.eberth@abdn.ac.uk)

  • Verity Watson

    (Health Economics Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK)

  • Mandy Ryan

    (Health Economics Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK)

  • Jenny Hughes

    (GlaxoSmithKline, Rathfarnham, Dublin, Ireland)

  • Gillian Barnett

    (Gillian Barnett and Associates, Donegal, Ireland)

Abstract

In this study, the authors demonstrate how mixed logit analysis of discrete choice experiment (DCE) data can provide information about unobserved preference heterogeneity. Their application investigates unobserved heterogeneity in men’s preferences for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) treatment. They use a DCE to elicit preferences for seven characteristics of BPH treatment: time to symptom improvement, sexual and nonsexual treatment side effects, risks of acute urinary retention and surgery, cost of treatment, and reduction in prostate size. They investigate the importance of these characteristics and the trade-offs men are willing to make between them. Preferences are elicited from a sample of 100 men attending an outpatient clinic in Ireland. The authors find all treatment characteristics are significant determinants of treatment choice. There is significant preference heterogeneity in the population for four treatment characteristics: time to symptom improvement, treatment reducing prostate size, risk of surgery, and sexual side effects. The importance of preference heterogeneity at the policy level within the context of shared decision making is discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Barbara Eberth & Verity Watson & Mandy Ryan & Jenny Hughes & Gillian Barnett, 2009. "Does One Size Fit All? Investigating Heterogeneity in Men’s Preferences for Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia Treatment Using Mixed Logit Analysis," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 29(6), pages 707-715, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:29:y:2009:i:6:p:707-715
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X09341754
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X09341754
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X09341754?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. Greene, William H. & Hensher, David A., 2007. "Heteroscedastic control for random coefficients and error components in mixed logit," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 43(5), pages 610-623, September.
    2. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555, September.
    3. McIntosh, E. & Ryan, M., 2002. "Using discrete choice experiments to derive welfare estimates for the provision of elective surgery: Implications of discontinuous preferences," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 23(3), pages 367-382, June.
    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. Milte, Rachel & Huynh, Elisabeth & Ratcliffe, Julie, 2019. "Assessing quality of care in nursing homes using discrete choice experiments: How does the level of cognitive functioning impact upon older people's preferences?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 238(C), pages 1-1.
    2. Pradnya Naik-Panvelkar & Carol Armour & John Rose & Bandana Saini, 2012. "Patient Preferences for Community Pharmacy Asthma Services," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 30(10), pages 961-976, October.
    3. Mylene Lagarde & Nonglak Pagaiya & Viroj Tangcharoensathian & Duane Blaauw, 2013. "One Size Does Not Fit All: Investigating Doctors' Stated Preference Heterogeneity For Job Incentives To Inform Policy In Thailand," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(12), pages 1452-1469, December.

    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. Ortega, David L. & Wang, H. Holly & Wu, Laping & Hong, Soo Jeong, 2015. "Retail channel and consumer demand for food quality in China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 359-366.
    2. Qian, Lixian & Grisolía, Jose M. & Soopramanien, Didier, 2019. "The impact of service and government-policy attributes on consumer preferences for electric vehicles in China," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 70-84.
    3. Rimjha, Mihir & Hotle, Susan & Trani, Antonio & Hinze, Nicolas, 2021. "Commuter demand estimation and feasibility assessment for Urban Air Mobility in Northern California," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 148(C), pages 506-524.
    4. Liesivaara, Petri & Myyrä, Sami, 2014. "Government policies in changing climate and the demand for crop insurance," 88th Annual Conference, April 9-11, 2014, AgroParisTech, Paris, France 170520, Agricultural Economics Society.
    5. Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Bartczak, Anna & Giergiczny, Marek & Navrud, Stale & Żylicz, Tomasz, 2014. "Providing preference-based support for forest ecosystem service management," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 1-12.
    6. Sobolewski, Maciej & Czajkowski, Mikołaj, 2018. "Receiver benefits and strategic use of call externalities in mobile telephony markets," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 16-27.
    7. Hensher, David A. & Ho, Chinh, 2015. "The role of perceived acceptability of alternatives in identifying and assessing choice set processing strategies in stated choice settings: The case of road pricing reform," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 225-237.
    8. Kim, Do-hun & Sjølie, Hanne K. & Aguilar, Francisco X., 2024. "Psychological distances to climate change and public preferences for biodiversity-augmenting attributes in family-owned production forests," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 163(C).
    9. Gillespie Rob & Kragt Marit E., 2012. "Accounting for Nonmarket Impacts in a Benefit-Cost Analysis of Underground Coal Mining in New South Wales, Australia," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, De Gruyter, vol. 3(2), pages 1-29, May.
    10. Stine Broch & Suzanne Vedel, 2012. "Using Choice Experiments to Investigate the Policy Relevance of Heterogeneity in Farmer Agri-Environmental Contract Preferences," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 51(4), pages 561-581, April.
    11. Julia Kloos & Niklas Baumert, 2015. "Preventive resettlement in anticipation of sea level rise: a choice experiment from Alexandria, Egypt," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 76(1), pages 99-121, March.
    12. Ladenburg, Jacob & Olsen, Søren Bøye, 2014. "Augmenting short Cheap Talk scripts with a repeated Opt-Out Reminder in Choice Experiment surveys," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 39-63.
    13. Rabotyagov, Sergey S. & Lin, Sonja, 2013. "Small forest landowner preferences for working forest conservation contract attributes: A case of Washington State, USA," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(3), pages 307-330.
    14. Marit E. Kragt & J.W. Bennett, 2011. "Using choice experiments to value catchment and estuary health in Tasmania with individual preference heterogeneity," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 55(2), pages 159-179, April.
    15. Hensher, David A., 2008. "Empirical approaches to combining revealed and stated preference data: Some recent developments with reference to urban mode choice," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(1), pages 23-29, January.
    16. David A. Hensher & Stewart Jones & William H. Greene, 2007. "An Error Component Logit Analysis of Corporate Bankruptcy and Insolvency Risk in Australia," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 83(260), pages 86-103, March.
    17. Erdem, Seda & Rigby, Dan, 2011. "Using a Discrete Choice Experiment to Elicit Consumers’ WTP for Health Risk Reductions Achieved By Nanotechnology in the UK," 85th Annual Conference, April 18-20, 2011, Warwick University, Coventry, UK 108950, Agricultural Economics Society.
    18. 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.
    19. Vedel, Suzanne Elizabeth & Jacobsen, Jette Bredahl & Thorsen, Bo Jellesmark, 2015. "Forest owners' willingness to accept contracts for ecosystem service provision is sensitive to additionality," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 15-24.
    20. Robert Gillespie & Jeff Bennett, 2011. "Willingness to pay for kerbside recycling the Brisbane Region," Environmental Economics Research Hub Research Reports 1097, Environmental Economics Research Hub, Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University.

    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:sae:medema:v:29:y:2009:i:6:p:707-715. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.