IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/hlthec/v12y2003i4p281-294.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Design techniques for stated preference methods in health economics

Author

Listed:
  • Fredrik Carlsson
  • Peter Martinsson

Abstract

This paper discusses different design techniques for stated preference surveys in health economic applications. In particular, we focus on different design techniques, i.e. how to combine the attribute levels into alternatives and choice sets, for choice experiments. Design is a vital issue in choice experiments since the combination of alternatives in the choice sets will determine the degree of precision obtainable from the estimates and welfare measures. In this paper we compare orthogonal, cyclical and D‐optimal designs, where the latter allows expectations about the true parameters to be included when creating the design. Moreover, we discuss how to obtain prior information on the parameters and how to conduct a sequential design procedure during the actual experiment in order to improve the precision in the estimates. The designs are evaluated according to their ability to predict the true marginal willingness to pay under different specifications of the utility function in Monte Carlo simulations. Our results suggest that the designs produce unbiased estimations, but orthogonal designs result in larger mean square error in comparison to D‐optimal designs. This result is expected when using correct priors on the parameters in D‐optimal designs. However, the simulations show that welfare measures are not very sensitive if the choice sets are generated from a D‐optimal design with biased priors. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:hlthec:v:12:y:2003:i:4:p:281-294
    DOI: 10.1002/hec.729
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.729
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/hec.729?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. Johansson,Per-Olov, 1995. "Evaluating Health Risks," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521478786.
    2. Carol Propper, 1995. "The Disutility of Time Spent on the United Kingdom's National Health Service Waiting Lists," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 30(4), pages 677-700.
    3. Verhoef, C. G. & Maas, A. & Stalpers, L. J. A. & Verbeek, A. L. M. & Wobbes, Th. & van Daal, W. A. J., 1991. "The feasibility of additive conjoint measurement in measuring utilities in breast cancer patients," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 17(1), pages 39-50, February.
    4. Mandy Ryan & Jenny Hughes, 1997. "Using Conjoint Analysis to Assess Women's Preferences for Miscarriage Management," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 6(3), pages 261-273, May.
    5. F. Reed Johnson & Melissa Ruby Banzhaf & William H. Desvousges, 2000. "Willingness to pay for improved respiratory and cardiovascular health: a multiple‐format, stated‐preference approach," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 9(4), pages 295-317, June.
    6. Vick, Sandra & Scott, Anthony, 1998. "Agency in health care. Examining patients' preferences for attributes of the doctor-patient relationship," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 17(5), pages 587-605, October.
    7. Kanninen Barbara J., 1993. "Design of Sequential Experiments for Contingent Valuation Studies," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 1-11, July.
    8. Alberini Anna, 1995. "Optimal Designs for Discrete Choice Contingent Valuation Surveys: Single-Bound, Double-Bound, and Bivariate Models," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 287-306, May.
    9. Barbara J. Kanninen, 1993. "Optimal Experimental Design for Double-Bounded Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 69(2), pages 138-146.
    10. Johansson,Per-Olov, 1995. "Evaluating Health Risks," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521472852.
    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. Richard T. Carson, 2011. "Contingent Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2489.
    2. Richard D. Smith, 2003. "Construction of the contingent valuation market in health care:a critical assessment," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(8), pages 609-628, August.
    3. F Alpizar & F Carlsson & P Martinsson, 2003. "Using Choice Experiments for Non-Market Valuation," Economic Issues Journal Articles, Economic Issues, vol. 8(1), pages 83-110, March.
    4. Johannesson, Magnus & Johansson, Per-Olov & Soderqvist, Tore, 1998. "Time spent on waiting lists for medical care: an insurance approach," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 17(5), pages 627-644, October.
    5. Mandy Ryan & Mabelle Amaya‐Amaya, 2005. "‘Threats’ to and hopes for estimating benefits," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(6), pages 609-619, June.
    6. John R. Crooker & Aju J. Fenn, 2008. "Estimating Local Welfare Generated by a Professional Sports Team: An Application to the Minnesota Vikings under Threat of Relocation," Working Papers 0805, University of Central Missouri, Department of Economics & Finance, revised May 2008.
    7. Emily Lancsar & Elizabeth Savage, 2004. "Deriving welfare measures from discrete choice experiments: inconsistency between current methods and random utility and welfare theory," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(9), pages 901-907, September.
    8. Axel Mühlbacher & Uwe Junker & Christin Juhnke & Edgar Stemmler & Thomas Kohlmann & Friedhelm Leverkus & Matthias Nübling, 2015. "Chronic pain patients’ treatment preferences: a discrete-choice experiment," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 16(6), pages 613-628, July.
    9. George Van Houtven & John Powers & Amber Jessup & Jui‐Chen Yang, 2006. "Valuing avoided morbidity using meta‐regression analysis: what can health status measures and QALYs tell us about WTP?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(8), pages 775-795, August.
    10. Christine A. Kennedy, 2002. "Revealed preference valuation compared to contingent valuation: radon‐induced lung cancer prevention," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(7), pages 585-598, October.
    11. Hanemann, W. Michael & Kanninen, Barbara, 1996. "The Statistical Analysis Of Discrete-Response Cv Data," CUDARE Working Papers 25022, University of California, Berkeley, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    12. Eulàlia Dalmau‐Matarrodona, 2001. "Alternative approaches to obtain optimal bid values in contingent valuation studies and to model protest zeros. Estimating the determinants of individuals' willingness to pay for home care services in," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 10(2), pages 101-118, March.
    13. Clarke, Philip M., 1998. "Cost-benefit analysis and mammographic screening: a travel cost approach," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 17(6), pages 767-787, December.
    14. Blomquist, Glenn C. & Coomes, Paul A. & Jepsen, Christopher & Koford, Brandon C. & Troske, Kenneth R., 2014. "Estimating the social value of higher education: willingness to pay for community and technical colleges," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 5(1), pages 3-41, January.
    15. Lamiraud, Karine & von Bremen, Konrade & Donaldson, Cam, 2009. "The impact of information on patient preferences in different delivery patterns: A contingent valuation study of prescription versus OTC drugs," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 93(2-3), pages 102-110, December.
    16. Kim, GwanSeon & Petrolia, Daniel R. & Interis, Matthew G., 2012. "A Method for Improving Welfare Estimates from Multiple-Referendum Surveys," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 37(2), pages 1-12, August.
    17. Gerdtham, Ulf-G & Johannesson, Magnus, 2001. "The relationship between happiness, health, and socio-economic factors: results based on Swedish microdata," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 30(6), pages 553-557.
    18. Juan Oliva & Félix Lobo & Julio López-Bastida & Néboa Zozaya & Rosa Romay, 2005. "Indirect costs of cervical and breast cancers in Spain," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 6(4), pages 309-313, December.
    19. Hugh Gravelle & Dave Smith, 2001. "Discounting for health effects in cost–benefit and cost‐effectiveness analysis," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 10(7), pages 587-599, October.
    20. Alan Shiell & Janelle Seymour & Penelope Hawe & Sue Cameron, 2000. "Are preferences over health states complete?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 9(1), pages 47-55, January.

    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:wly:hlthec:v:12:y:2003:i:4:p:281-294. 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: . General contact details of provider: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jhome/5749 .

    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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jhome/5749 .

    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.