IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

Using discrete choice experiments to measure preferences for hard to observe choice attributes to inform health policy decisions


  • Eline Broek-Altenburg

    () (University of Vermont)

  • Adam Atherly

    (University of Vermont)


Background Models of preferences in health services research (HSR) and Health Economics are often defined by readily available information, such as that captured in claims data and electronic health records. Yet many important questions about patient choices cannot be easily studied because of a lack of critical data elements. The objective of this review is to outline the advantages of using stated preferences (SP) data in health services research, and to outline how these methods can be used to evaluate choices that have not yet been offered or studied. Main body This article focuses on the application of DCE’s to relevant policy and health system delivery questions currently relevant, particularly in the United States. DCE’s may be helpful to collect data from patient or consumer data that we currently do not have. The article provides examples of research questions that have been answered using SP data collected with a DCE. It outlines how to construct a DCE and how to analyze the data. It also discusses the methodological challenges and emphasizes important considerations regarding the design and estimation methods. SP data can be adopted in situations where we would like to have consumer choice data, but we currently do not. These are often hypothetical situations to analyze the decision-making process of individuals. With SP data it is possible to analyze trade-offs patients make when choosing between treatment options where these hard to measure attributes are important. Conclusion This paper emphasizes that a carefully designed DCE and appropriate estimation methods can open up a new world of data regarding trade-offs patients and providers in healthcare are willing to make. It updates previous “how to” guide for DCE’s for health services researchers and health economists who are not familiar with these methods or have been unwilling to use them and updates previous description of these methods with timely examples.

Suggested Citation

  • Eline Broek-Altenburg & Adam Atherly, 2020. "Using discrete choice experiments to measure preferences for hard to observe choice attributes to inform health policy decisions," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 10(1), pages 1-8, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:hecrev:v:10:y:2020:i:1:d:10.1186_s13561-020-00276-x
    DOI: 10.1186/s13561-020-00276-x

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Nick Hanley & Robert Wright & Vic Adamowicz, 1998. "Using Choice Experiments to Value the Environment," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 11(3), pages 413-428, April.
    2. Berinsky, Adam J. & Huber, Gregory A. & Lenz, Gabriel S., 2012. "Evaluating Online Labor Markets for Experimental Research:'s Mechanical Turk," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 20(3), pages 351-368, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)


    Blog mentions

    As found by, the blog aggregator for Economics research:
    1. Chris Sampson’s journal round-up for 6th July 2020
      by Chris Sampson in The Academic Health Economists' Blog on 2020-07-06 11:00:00

    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. Rebecca R Carter & Analisa DiFeo & Kath Bogie & Guo-Qiang Zhang & Jiayang Sun, 2014. "Crowdsourcing Awareness: Exploration of the Ovarian Cancer Knowledge Gap through Amazon Mechanical Turk," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(1), pages 1-10, January.
    2. Chaikaew, Pasicha & Hodges, Alan W. & Grunwald, Sabine, 2017. "Estimating the value of ecosystem services in a mixed-use watershed: A choice experiment approach," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 228-237.
    3. Robbett, Andrea & Matthews, Peter Hans, 2018. "Partisan bias and expressive voting," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 107-120.
    4. Joseph A Hamm & Corwin Smidt & Roger C Mayer, 2019. "Understanding the psychological nature and mechanisms of political trust," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(5), pages 1-20, May.
    5. Park, JungKun & Ahn, Jiseon & Thavisay, Toulany & Ren, Tianbao, 2019. "Examining the role of anxiety and social influence in multi-benefits of mobile payment service," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 140-149.
    6. Anabela Botelho & Lina Sofia Lourenço-Gomes & Lígia Costa Pinto & Sara Sousa & Marieta Valente, 2016. "Accounting for local impacts of photovoltaic farms: two stated preferences approaches," NIMA Working Papers 64, Núcleo de Investigação em Microeconomia Aplicada (NIMA), Universidade do Minho.
    7. de Ayala, Amaia & Hoyos, David & Mariel, Petr, 2015. "Suitability of discrete choice experiments for landscape management under the European Landscape Convention," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 79-96.
    8. Kallas, Z. & Gómez-Limón, J.A., 2007. "Valoración De La Multifuncionalidad Agraria: Una Aplicación A Través Del Método De Los Experimentos De Elección/Agricultural Multifunctionality Valuation: A Case Study Using The Choice Experiment," Estudios de Economia Aplicada, Estudios de Economia Aplicada, vol. 25, pages 107-144, Abril.
    9. Concu, Giovanni B., 2007. "Investigating distance effects on environmental values: a choice modelling approach," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 51(2), pages 1-20.
    10. Masha Shunko & Julie Niederhoff & Yaroslav Rosokha, 2018. "Humans Are Not Machines: The Behavioral Impact of Queueing Design on Service Time," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(1), pages 453-473, January.
    11. Bergmann, Ariel & Colombo, Sergio & Hanley, Nicholas & Ready, Richard & Stewart, Mairi & Watson, Fiona, 2008. "The impacts of knowledge of the past on preferences for future landscape change," Stirling Economics Discussion Papers 2008-05, University of Stirling, Division of Economics.
    12. Roussy, Caroline & Ridier, Aude & Chaib, Karim, 2014. "A methodological proposal to approach farmers’ adoption behavior: stated preferences and perceptions of the innovation," 2014 International Congress, August 26-29, 2014, Ljubljana, Slovenia 182983, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    13. Mattozzi, Andrea & Snowberg, Erik, 2018. "The right type of legislator: A theory of taxation and representation," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 159(C), pages 54-65.
    14. List John A. & Sinha Paramita & Taylor Michael H., 2006. "Using Choice Experiments to Value Non-Market Goods and Services: Evidence from Field Experiments," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 5(2), pages 1-39, January.
    15. Bart Neuts & Peter Nijkamp & Eveline Van Leeuwen, 2012. "Crowding Externalities from Tourist Use of Urban Space," Tourism Economics, , vol. 18(3), pages 649-670, June.
    16. Zandersen, Marianne & Oddershede, Jakob Stoktoft & Pedersen, Anders Branth & Nielsen, Helle Ørsted & Termansen, Mette, 2021. "Nature Based Solutions for Climate Adaptation - Paying Farmers for Flood Control," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 179(C).
    17. Jun Zhang & Joon Soo Lim, 2021. "Mitigating negative spillover effects in a product-harm crisis: strategies for market leaders versus market challengers," Journal of Brand Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 28(1), pages 77-98, January.
    18. Jin, Jianjun & Wang, Zhishi & Ran, Shenghong, 2006. "Comparison of contingent valuation and choice experiment in solid waste management programs in Macao," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(3), pages 430-441, May.
    19. Cantarella, Michele & Strozzi, Chiara, 2019. "Workers in the Crowd: The Labour Market Impact of the Online Platform Economy," IZA Discussion Papers 12327, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    20. Elena Ojea & Paulo Nunes & Maria Loureiro, 2010. "Mapping Biodiversity Indicators and Assessing Biodiversity Values in Global Forests," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 47(3), pages 329-347, November.


    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:hecrev:v:10:y:2020:i:1:d:10.1186_s13561-020-00276-x. 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: (Sonal Shukla) or (Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing). General contact details of provider: .

    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.