IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v43y2023i3p362-373.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Comparison of Ordered Categorical versus Discrete Choices within a Stated Preference Survey of Whole-Blood Donors

Author

Listed:
  • Zia Sadique

    (Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK)

  • John Cairns

    (Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK)

  • Kaat De Corte

    (Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK)

  • Sarah Willis

    (Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK)

  • Alec Miners

    (Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK)

  • Nick Bansback

    (Health Services and Policy, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada)

  • Richard Grieve

    (Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK)

Abstract

There are different stated preference (SP) approaches, including discrete choice experiments (DCEs). DCEs are a popular SP approach, but in some settings, alternative ways of framing survey questions may be more appropriate. The Health Economic Modelling Of Alternative Blood Donation Strategies (HEMO) study required choice tasks to be framed so that the study could estimate the effect of attribute levels on the frequency of a behavior—in this case, blood donation. SP questions were formulated to require ordered categorical responses from a single profile of attribute levels. However, it is unknown whether this way of framing SP questions leads to estimates of marginal rates of substitution (MRS) that are different from traditional DCE choices between 2 alternative profiles. The aim of this article is to compare estimates of relative preferences from SP questions requiring ordered categorical versus discrete choice responses. We compared relative preferences elicited from the 2 approaches for a common set of attributes and levels, formulated as choice tasks for 8,933 whole-blood donors. We found that the 2 forms of survey questions provided similar MRSs estimates. For example, respondents were willing to trade off only a small increase in travel time to receive a health report, irrespective of whether the choice given was binary (DCE response; approximately 3 min) or from an ordered category (about 8 min). The finding that any differences in the estimated MRSs are not of substantive importance offers some reassurance for policy makers in that estimates of relative preference may be robust to alternative ways of framing the survey questions. These findings can encourage future studies to frame choice tasks that align with the study’s objective. Highlights This article compares the relative preferences from stated preference (SP) questions requiring ordered categorical versus discrete choice responses. The approaches were contrasted for blood donation service characteristics that offer opportunities to donate blood. The estimates of relative preferences for alternative blood donation service characteristics were similar between the 2 forms of SP approach. This study illustrates how SP survey questions can be formulated to provide responses on an ordered categorical scale and to estimate marginal rates of substitution between different attributes, which can be compared with those derived from discrete choice experiment (DCE) choices. The article highlights the potential value of considering alternative choice framings rather than relying solely on DCEs.

Suggested Citation

  • Zia Sadique & John Cairns & Kaat De Corte & Sarah Willis & Alec Miners & Nick Bansback & Richard Grieve, 2023. "A Comparison of Ordered Categorical versus Discrete Choices within a Stated Preference Survey of Whole-Blood Donors," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 43(3), pages 362-373, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:43:y:2023:i:3:p:362-373
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X221145048
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X221145048
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X221145048?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. Hess, Stephane & Train, Kenneth, 2017. "Correlation and scale in mixed logit models," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 1-8.
    2. Richard Carson & Nicholas Flores & Norman Meade, 2001. "Contingent Valuation: Controversies and Evidence," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 19(2), pages 173-210, June.
    3. Richard Carson & Jordan Louviere, 2011. "A Common Nomenclature for Stated Preference Elicitation Approaches," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 49(4), pages 539-559, August.
    4. 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.
    5. Mandy Ryan & Verity Watson, 2009. "Comparing welfare estimates from payment card contingent valuation and discrete choice experiments," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(4), pages 389-401, April.
    6. Carson, Richard T & Flores, Nicholas A, 2000. "Contingent Valuation: Controversies and Evidence," University of California at San Diego, Economics Working Paper Series qt75k752s7, Department of Economics, UC San Diego.
    7. Mandy Ryan, 2004. "A comparison of stated preference methods for estimating monetary values," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(3), pages 291-296, March.
    8. Lancsar, Emily & Louviere, Jordan & Flynn, Terry, 2007. "Several methods to investigate relative attribute impact in stated preference experiments," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 64(8), pages 1738-1753, April.
    9. 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, April.
    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. 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.
    2. Andersson, Henrik & Hole, Arne Risa & Svensson, Mikael, 2016. "Valuation of small and multiple health risks: A critical analysis of SP data applied to food and water safety," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 41-53.
    3. Van Houtven, George L. & Pattanayak, Subhrendu K. & Usmani, Faraz & Yang, Jui-Chen, 2017. "What are Households Willing to Pay for Improved Water Access? Results from a Meta-Analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 126-135.
    4. Mikołaj Czajkowski & Bartosz Jusypenko & Ben White, 2025. "Breaking New Ground in Heritage Valuation: A Comprehensive Use of Discrete Choice Experiments," Working Papers 2025-11, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    5. Ståle Navrud & Jon Strand, 2018. "Valuing Global Ecosystem Services: What Do European Experts Say? Applying the Delphi Method to Contingent Valuation of the Amazon Rainforest," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 70(1), pages 249-269, May.
    6. Farr, Marina & Stoeckl, Natalie & Alam Beg, Rabiul, 2014. "The non-consumptive (tourism) ‘value’ of marine species in the Northern section of the Great Barrier Reef," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 89-103.
    7. Gómez-Valenzuela, Víctor & Alpízar, Francisco & Bonilla, Solhanlle & Franco-Billini, Carol, 2020. "Mining conflict in the Dominican Republic: The case of Loma Miranda," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 66(C).
    8. Lotte Soeteman & Job Exel & Ana Bobinac, 2017. "The impact of the design of payment scales on the willingness to pay for health gains," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 18(6), pages 743-760, July.
    9. Arne Hole & Julie Kolstad, 2012. "Mixed logit estimation of willingness to pay distributions: a comparison of models in preference and WTP space using data from a health-related choice experiment," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 42(2), pages 445-469, April.
    10. Emily Lancsar & Peter Burge, 2014. "Choice modelling research in health economics," Chapters, in: Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly (ed.), Handbook of Choice Modelling, chapter 28, pages 675-687, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    11. David Whynes & Emma Frew & Jane Wolstenholme, 2005. "Willingness-to-Pay and Demand Curves: A Comparison of Results Obtained Using Different Elicitation Formats," International Journal of Health Economics and Management, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 369-386, December.
    12. Marjon van der Pol & Shiell, Alan & Au, Flora & Johnston, David & Tough, Suzanne, 2008. "Convergent validity between a discrete choice experiment and a direct, open-ended method: Comparison of preferred attribute levels and willingness to pay estimates," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 67(12), pages 2043-2050, December.
    13. Richard T. Carson & Miko_aj Czajkowski, 2014. "The discrete choice experiment approach to environmental contingent valuation," Chapters, in: Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly (ed.), Handbook of Choice Modelling, chapter 9, pages 202-235, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    14. Vincent,Jeffrey R. & Carson,Richard T. & Navrud,Stale & Ortiz Bobea,Ariel & Strand,Jon & Vincent,Jeffrey R. & Carson,Richard T. & Navrud,Stale & Ortiz Bobea,Ariel & Strand,Jon, 2014. "A"Delphi exercise"as a tool in Amazon rainforest valuation," Policy Research Working Paper Series 7143, The World Bank.
    15. Peter Howley & Stephen Hynes & Cathal O’Donoghue, 2009. "Countryside Preferences: Exploring individuals’ WTP for the protection of traditional rural landscapes," Working Papers 0906, Rural Economy and Development Programme,Teagasc.
    16. Doll, Claire A. & Burton, Michael P. & Pannell, David J. & Rollins, Curtis L., 2023. "Are greenspaces too green? Landscape preferences and water use in urban parks," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 211(C).
    17. Marije Schaafsma & Roy Brouwer, 2020. "Substitution Effects in Spatial Discrete Choice Experiments," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 75(2), pages 323-349, February.
    18. Yadav, Lava Prakash & O'Neill, Stephen, 2013. "Is there agreement between beneficiaries on who should bear the costs of conserving farm landscapes?," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 62-70.
    19. Bosworth Ryan & Taylor Laura O., 2012. "Hypothetical Bias in Choice Experiments: Is Cheap Talk Effective at Eliminating Bias on the Intensive and Extensive Margins of Choice?," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 12(1), pages 1-28, December.
    20. Mikhail Miklyaev & Glenn P. Jenkins & Precious P. Adeshina, 2022. "Ex-Post Evaluation of The Algerian SWRO Desalination PPP Program," Development Discussion Papers 2022-14, JDI Executive Programs.

    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:43:y:2023:i:3:p:362-373. 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.