IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/eujhec/v26y2025i7d10.1007_s10198-025-01760-z.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Association of medication adherence with treatment preferences: incentivizing truthful self-reporting

Author

Listed:
  • Carina Oedingen

    (Erasmus University Rotterdam
    Erasmus University Rotterdam
    Erasmus University Rotterdam)

  • Raf Gestel

    (Erasmus University Rotterdam
    Erasmus University Rotterdam
    Erasmus University Rotterdam
    Leuven Institute for Healthcare Policy, KU Leuven)

  • Samare P. I. Huls

    (Erasmus University Rotterdam
    Erasmus University Rotterdam
    Erasmus University Rotterdam)

  • Georg Granic

    (Erasmus University Rotterdam)

  • Esther W. Bekker-Grob

    (Erasmus University Rotterdam
    Erasmus University Rotterdam
    Erasmus University Rotterdam)

  • Jorien Veldwijk

    (Erasmus University Rotterdam
    Erasmus University Rotterdam
    Erasmus University Rotterdam)

Abstract

Objective Self-reported medication adherence may be influenced by socially desirable answers and untruthful reporting. Misreporting of adherence behavior can bias estimations of treatment (cost)effectiveness. This study investigated how to induce truthful self-reported medication adherence and evaluated how self-reported (truth-induced vs. regularly reported) medication adherence and treatment preferences were associated. Methods Medication adherence was measured after a discrete choice experiment eliciting stated preferences for Multiple Sclerosis (MS)-treatments. Data was collected among MS-patients in three Western countries. Half of the sample was randomized to ‘choice-matching’, a novel mechanism which induces truthfulness. It financially compensates respondents based on their self-reported adherence and guesses about other respondents’ adherence. To investigate the impact of truth-incentivized adherence reporting on preference heterogeneity, interaction effects between medication adherence and treatment preferences were tested separately within the choice-matching and the ‘standard’ group. Results The sample comprised 380 MS-patients (mean age 41y, 69% female). Respondents in the choice-matching group reported a lower medication adherence compared to the standard group (always adherent: 39.3% vs. 46.6%). Mixed logit models showed significant interaction effects: in the choice-matching group, higher medication adherence resulted in lower utility for pills twice/day compared to injections three times/week (p = 0.019), while in the standard group, respondents with higher medication adherence preferred pills once/day compared to injections three times/week (p = 0.005). Conclusion Choice-matching likely encouraged respondents to report their true medication adherence. Linking truthful behavior to patients’ preferences allows for a better understanding of preference heterogeneity and helping to make decisions that fit patients’ true preferences.

Suggested Citation

  • Carina Oedingen & Raf Gestel & Samare P. I. Huls & Georg Granic & Esther W. Bekker-Grob & Jorien Veldwijk, 2025. "Association of medication adherence with treatment preferences: incentivizing truthful self-reporting," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 26(7), pages 1219-1232, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:eujhec:v:26:y:2025:i:7:d:10.1007_s10198-025-01760-z
    DOI: 10.1007/s10198-025-01760-z
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10198-025-01760-z
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10198-025-01760-z?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Pierre Duquette & Michael Yeung & Soukaïna Mouallif & Hamid Reza Nakhaipour & Paola Haddad & Robyn Schecter, 2019. "A retrospective claims analysis: Compliance and discontinuation rates among Canadian patients with multiple sclerosis treated with disease-modifying therapies," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(1), pages 1-9, January.
    2. Nolan Miller & Paul Resnick & Richard Zeckhauser, 2005. "Eliciting Informative Feedback: The Peer-Prediction Method," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 51(9), pages 1359-1373, September.
    3. Charness, Gary & Gneezy, Uri & Rasocha, Vlastimil, 2021. "Experimental methods: Eliciting beliefs," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 189(C), pages 234-256.
    4. Angela Fagerlin & Brian J. Zikmund-Fisher & Peter A. Ubel & Aleksandra Jankovic & Holly A. Derry & Dylan M. Smith, 2007. "Measuring Numeracy without a Math Test: Development of the Subjective Numeracy Scale," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 27(5), pages 672-680, September.
    5. Simone Cerroni & Daniel W. Derbyshire & W. George Hutchinson & Rodolfo M. Nayga Jr., 2023. "A Choice Matching Approach for Discrete Choice Analysis: An Experimental Investigation in the Laboratory," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 99(1), pages 80-102.
    6. Brian J. Zikmund-Fisher & Dylan M. Smith & Peter A. Ubel & Angela Fagerlin, 2007. "Validation of the Subjective Numeracy Scale: Effects of Low Numeracy on Comprehension of Risk Communications and Utility Elicitations," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 27(5), pages 663-671, September.
    7. Baillon, Aurelien & Xu, Yan, 2021. "Simple bets to elicit private signals," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 16(3), July.
    8. Jakša Cvitanić & Dražen Prelec & Blake Riley & Benjamin Tereick, 2019. "Honesty via Choice-Matching," American Economic Review: Insights, American Economic Association, vol. 1(2), pages 179-192, September.
    9. Edward J. D. Webb & David Meads & Ieva Eskyte & Natalie King & Naila Dracup & Jeremy Chataway & Helen L. Ford & Joachim Marti & Sue H. Pavitt & Klaus Schmierer & Ana Manzano, 2018. "A Systematic Review of Discrete-Choice Experiments and Conjoint Analysis Studies in People with Multiple Sclerosis," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 11(4), pages 391-402, August.
    10. Baillon, Aurelien & Xu, Yan, 2021. "Simple bets to elicit private signals," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 16(3), July.
    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. Ewa Zawojska & Michał Krawczyk, 2022. "Incentivizing stated preference elicitation with choice-matching in the field," Working Papers 2022-04, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    2. Bergemann, Dirk & Ottaviani, Marco, 2021. "Information Markets and Nonmarkets," CEPR Discussion Papers 16459, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    3. Yaniv Hanoch & Talya Miron-Shatz & Mary Himmelstein, 2010. "Genetic testing and risk interpretation: How do women understand lifetime risk results?," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 5(2), pages 116-123, April.
    4. Charness, Gary & Gneezy, Uri & Rasocha, Vlastimil, 2021. "Experimental methods: Eliciting beliefs," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 189(C), pages 234-256.
    5. Yaniv Hanoch & Jonathan Rolison & Alexandra M. Freund, 2019. "Reaping the Benefits and Avoiding the Risks: Unrealistic Optimism in the Health Domain," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(4), pages 792-804, April.
    6. Swait, J. & de Bekker-Grob, E.W., 2022. "A discrete choice model implementing gist-based categorization of alternatives, with applications to patient preferences for cancer screening and treatment," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 85(C).
    7. Nicolas Eber & Patrick Roger & Tristan Roger, 2024. "Finance and intelligence: An overview of the literature," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(2), pages 503-554, April.
    8. repec:cup:judgdm:v:14:y:2019:i:4:p:412-422 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Dolores J. Severtson & James E. Burt, 2012. "The Influence of Mapped Hazards on Risk Beliefs: A Proximity‐Based Modeling Approach," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(2), pages 259-280, February.
    10. Jakub Traczyk & Agata Sobkow & Kamil Fulawka & Jakub Kus & Dafina Petrova & Rocio Garcia-Retamero, 2018. "Numerate decision makers don't use more effortful strategies unless it pays: A process tracing investigation of skilled and adaptive strategy selection in risky decision making," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 13(4), pages 372-381, July.
    11. repec:cup:judgdm:v:9:y:2014:i:1:p:15-34 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. Rebecca Hess & Vivianne H.M. Visschers & Michael Siegrist & Carmen Keller, 2011. "How do people perceive graphical risk communication? The role of subjective numeracy," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(1), pages 47-61, January.
    13. Sarah A. Kusumastuti & Jim Blythe & Heather Rosoff & Richard S. John, 2020. "Behavioral Determinants of Target Shifting and Deterrence in an Analog Cyber‐Attack Game," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(3), pages 476-493, March.
    14. Huls, Samare P.I. & de Bekker-Grob, Esther W., 2022. "Can healthcare choice be predicted using stated preference data? The role of model complexity in a discrete choice experiment about colorectal cancer screening," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 315(C).
    15. Baillon, Aurélien & Bleichrodt, Han & Granic, Georg D., 2022. "Incentives in surveys," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 93(C).
    16. Saima Ghazal & Edward T. Cokely & Rocio Garcia-Retamero, 2014. "Predicting biases in very highly educated samples: Numeracy and metacognition," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 9(1), pages 15-34, January.
    17. Becky L. Choma & David Sumantry & Yaniv Hanoch, 2019. "Right-wing ideology and numeracy: A perception of greater ability, but poorer performance," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 14(4), pages 412-422, July.
    18. repec:cup:judgdm:v:13:y:2018:i:4:p:372-381 is not listed on IDEAS
    19. Marie-Anne Durand & Renata W Yen & James O’Malley & Glyn Elwyn & Julien Mancini, 2020. "Graph literacy matters: Examining the association between graph literacy, health literacy, and numeracy in a Medicaid eligible population," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(11), pages 1-14, November.
    20. Wolfgang Gaissmaier & Kevin E. Tiede & Rocio Garcia-Retamero, 2023. "The Lure of Beauty: People Select Representations of Statistical Information Largely Based on Attractiveness, Not Comprehensibility," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 43(7-8), pages 774-788, October.
    21. repec:plo:pone00:0198992 is not listed on IDEAS
    22. Fasolo, Barbara & Bana e Costa, Carlos A., 2014. "Tailoring value elicitation to decision makers' numeracy and fluency: Expressing value judgments in numbers or words," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 83-90.
    23. Carmen Keller, 2011. "Using a Familiar Risk Comparison Within a Risk Ladder to Improve Risk Understanding by Low Numerates: A Study of Visual Attention," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(7), pages 1043-1054, July.
    24. Dolores J. Severtson & Jeffrey D. Myers, 2013. "The Influence of Uncertain Map Features on Risk Beliefs and Perceived Ambiguity for Maps of Modeled Cancer Risk from Air Pollution," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(5), pages 818-837, May.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:spr:eujhec:v:26:y:2025:i:7:d:10.1007_s10198-025-01760-z. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.