IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/pharme/v35y2017i9d10.1007_s40273-017-0518-0.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Using Discrete Choice Experiments to Inform the Benefit-Risk Assessment of Medicines: Are We Ready Yet?

Author

Listed:
  • Caroline M. Vass

    (The University of Manchester)

  • Katherine Payne

    () (The University of Manchester)

Abstract

Abstract There is emerging interest in the use of discrete choice experiments as a means of quantifying the perceived balance between benefits and risks (quantitative benefit-risk assessment) of new healthcare interventions, such as medicines, under assessment by regulatory agencies. For stated preference data on benefit-risk assessment to be used in regulatory decision making, the methods to generate these data must be valid, reliable and capable of producing meaningful estimates understood by decision makers. Some reporting guidelines exist for discrete choice experiments, and for related methods such as conjoint analysis. However, existing guidelines focus on reporting standards, are general in focus and do not consider the requirements for using discrete choice experiments specifically for quantifying benefit-risk assessments in the context of regulatory decision making. This opinion piece outlines the current state of play in using discrete choice experiments for benefit-risk assessment and proposes key areas needing to be addressed to demonstrate that discrete choice experiments are an appropriate and valid stated preference elicitation method in this context. Methodological research is required to establish: how robust the results of discrete choice experiments are to formats and methods of risk communication; how information in the discrete choice experiment can be presented effectually to respondents; whose preferences should be elicited; the correct underlying utility function and analytical model; the impact of heterogeneity in preferences; and the generalisability of the results. We believe these methodological issues should be addressed, alongside developing a ‘reference case’, before agencies can safely and confidently use discrete choice experiments for quantitative benefit-risk assessment in the context of regulatory decision making for new medicines and healthcare products.

Suggested Citation

  • Caroline M. Vass & Katherine Payne, 2017. "Using Discrete Choice Experiments to Inform the Benefit-Risk Assessment of Medicines: Are We Ready Yet?," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 35(9), pages 859-866, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:pharme:v:35:y:2017:i:9:d:10.1007_s40273-017-0518-0
    DOI: 10.1007/s40273-017-0518-0
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40273-017-0518-0
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Stephane Hess & Nesha Beharry-Borg, 2012. "Accounting for Latent Attitudes in Willingness-to-Pay Studies: The Case of Coastal Water Quality Improvements in Tobago," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 52(1), pages 109-131, May.
    2. Gafni, Amiram & Charles, Cathy & Whelan, Tim, 1998. "The physician-patient encounter: The physician as a perfect agent for the patient versus the informed treatment decision-making model," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 47(3), pages 347-354, August.
    3. Don Husereau & Michael Drummond & Stavros Petrou & Chris Carswell & David Moher & Dan Greenberg & Federico Augustovski & Andrew Briggs & Josephine Mauskopf & Elizabeth Loder, 2013. "Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 14(3), pages 367-372, June.
    4. Ben-Akiva, Moshe & McFadden, Daniel & Train, Kenneth & Börsch-Supan, Axel, 2002. "Hybrid Choice Models: Progress and Challenges," Sonderforschungsbereich 504 Publications 02-29, Sonderforschungsbereich 504, Universität Mannheim;Sonderforschungsbereich 504, University of Mannheim.
    5. Hammitt, James K & Graham, John D, 1999. "Willingness to Pay for Health Protection: Inadequate Sensitivity to Probability?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 18(1), pages 33-62, April.
    6. McFadden, Daniel, 1980. "Econometric Models for Probabilistic Choice among Products," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 53(3), pages 13-29, July.
    7. Emmanouil Mentzakis & Mandy Ryan & Paul McNamee, 2011. "Using discrete choice experiments to value informal care tasks: exploring preference heterogeneity," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(8), pages 930-944, August.
    8. Arne Risa Hole, 2006. "Small-sample properties of tests for heteroscedasticity in the conditional logit model," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 3(18), pages 1-14.
    9. Hadorn, David C., 1991. "The role of public values in setting health care priorities," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 32(7), pages 773-781, January.
    10. G. Ardine De Wit & Jan J.V. Busschbach & Frank Th. De Charro, 2000. "Sensitivity and perspective in the valuation of health status: whose values count?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 9(2), pages 109-126.
    11. Harris, Katherine M. & Keane, Michael P., 1998. "A model of health plan choice:: Inferring preferences and perceptions from a combination of revealed preference and attitudinal data," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 89(1-2), pages 131-157, November.
    12. Drummond, Michael F. & Sculpher, Mark J. & Claxton, Karl & Stoddart, Greg L. & Torrance, George W., 2015. "Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, edition 4, number 9780199665884.
    13. Riccardo Scarpa & Timothy J. Gilbride & Danny Campbell & David A. Hensher, 2009. "Modelling attribute non-attendance in choice experiments for rural landscape valuation," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Foundation for the European Review of Agricultural Economics, vol. 36(2), pages 151-174, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Blog mentions

    As found by EconAcademics.org, the blog aggregator for Economics research:
    1. Thesis Thursday: David Mott
      by Chris Sampson in The Academic Health Economists' Blog on 2019-04-18 06:00:33

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. repec:spr:patien:v:10:y:2017:i:5:d:10.1007_s40271-017-0272-6 is not listed on IDEAS

    More about this item

    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:pharme:v:35:y:2017:i:9:d:10.1007_s40273-017-0518-0. 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 (Mallaigh Nolan). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.