Author
Listed:
- Thi Quynh Anh Ho
(Institute of Health Transformation, Deakin University)
- Lidia Engel
(Monash University Health Economics Group, Monash University)
- Long Khanh-Dao Le
(Monash University Health Economics Group, Monash University)
- Glenn Melvin
(Deakin University)
- Jemimah Ride
(Monash University Health Economics Group, Monash University
University of Melbourne)
- Ha N. D. Le
(Institute of Health Transformation, Deakin University)
- Cathrine Mihalopoulos
(Institute of Health Transformation, Deakin University
Monash University Health Economics Group, Monash University)
Abstract
Background Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) and best–worst scaling (BWS) profile cases (BWS case 2, or BWS-2) have been increasingly used in eliciting preferences towards health care interventions. However, it remains unclear which method is more suitable for preference elicitation, particularly in the mental health context. This study aims to compare: (1) the preference results elicited from a DCE and BWS-2; and (2) the acceptability of the two methods in the context of web-based mental health interventions (W-MHIs) for managing anxiety and depression in young people. Methods Participants were aged 18–25 years, lived in Australia, and self-reported experiencing anxiety and/or depression in the past 12 months. They also had either an intention to use W-MHIs or previous experience with W-MHIs for managing anxiety and/or depression. Recruitment was conducted online via social media and Deakin University notice boards. Eligible participants completed an online survey containing eight DCE and eight BWS-2 choice tasks. Both types of choice tasks comprised six attributes. A multinominal logit model was used to estimate the preference weights and relative importance of attributes. Acceptability was assessed on the basis of dropout rate, completion time, task difficulty, understanding, and participants’ preferred type of choice task. Results A total of 198 participants (mean age: 21.42 ± 2.3 years, 64.65% female) completed the survey. Both DCE and BWS-2 predicted that cost was the most important attribute in young people’s decision to engage with W-MHIs. However, the two methods differed in the relative importance of attributes and the preference ranking of levels within attributes. The DCE was perceived as easier to understand and answer, with nearly 64% of the participants preferring it over the BWS-2. Conclusions While both methods found cost was the most important attribute associated with engagement with W-MHIs, differences in the ranking of other attributes suggest that DCE and BWS-2 are not necessarily interchangeable. Increased acceptability by study participants of the DCE format suggests that this technique may have more merit than BWS-2—at least in the current study’s context. Further research is required to identify the optimal method for determining the relative importance of attributes.
Suggested Citation
Thi Quynh Anh Ho & Lidia Engel & Long Khanh-Dao Le & Glenn Melvin & Jemimah Ride & Ha N. D. Le & Cathrine Mihalopoulos, 2025.
"Discrete Choice Experiment Versus Best–Worst Scaling: An Empirical Comparison in Eliciting Young People’s Preferences for Web-Based Mental Health Interventions,"
The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 18(4), pages 357-372, July.
Handle:
RePEc:spr:patien:v:18:y:2025:i:4:d:10.1007_s40271-025-00739-5
DOI: 10.1007/s40271-025-00739-5
Download full text from publisher
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.
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:patien:v:18:y:2025:i:4:d:10.1007_s40271-025-00739-5. 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.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.