Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Estimating Weights for the Active Ageing Index (AAI) from Stated Preferences: Proposal for a Discrete Choice Experiment (DCE)

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Building Evidence for Active Ageing Policies

  • 890 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter outlines how Discrete Choice Experiments (DCEs) could be used to estimate alternative weights for the Active Ageing Index (AAI) based on stated preferences. The approach is based on Random Utility Theory and could provide valuable information on marginal substitution rates between AAI indicators and domains. Complementing the current AAI methodology with preference-based weights may also allow assessing preference variation across different social, cultural or geographic contexts. This would help define more targeted active and healthy ageing policies and interventions, incorporate stakeholders’ views in the valuation of policy outcomes and enhance the acceptance of the Index as a tool for policy analysis.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • AAI-Expert Group. (2014). Report of the third meeting of the AAI Expert Group. Brussels, Belgium. Retrieved from http://www1.unece.org/stat/platform/download/attachments/76287849/Report%20of%20the%20Third%20meeting_Final.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1395409157483&api=v2

  • Amaya-Amaya, M., Gerard, K., & Ryan, M. (2008). Discrete choice experiments in a nutshell. In M. Ryan, K. Gerard, & M. Amaya-Amaya (Eds.), Using discrete choice experiments to value health and healthcare. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boehler, C., & Abadie, F. (2015). Monitoring and Assessment Framework for the European Innovation Partnership on Active and Healthy Ageing (MAFEIP). Conceptual description of the monitoring framework. European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Seville, Spain. ISBN:978-92-79-50574-4. Retrieved from http://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC96205

  • Boehler, C., de Graaf, G., Steuten, L., Yang, Y., & Abadie, F. (2015, September). Development of a web-based tool for the assessment of health and economic outcomes of the European Innovation Partnership on Active and Healthy Ageing (EIP on AHA). BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, 15(Suppl. 3), S4. Retrieved from http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6947/15/S3/S4

  • Bridges, J. F., Hauber, A. B., Marshall, D., Lloyd, A., Prosser, L. A., Regier, D. A., Johnson, F. R., & Mauskopf, J. (2011). Conjoint analysis applications in health-a checklist: Report of the ISPOR good research practices for conjoint analysis task force. Value in Health, 14(4), 403–413. Retrieved from http://www.ispor.org/taskforces/documents/ISPOR-CA-in-Health-TF-Report-Checklist.pdf

  • Carson, R. T., & Groves, T. (2007). Incentive and informational properties of preference questions. Environmental and Resource Economics, 37, 181–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coast, J., Al-Janabi, H., Sutton, E. J., Horrocks, S. A., Vosper, A. J., Swancutt, D. R., & Flynn, T. N. (2012). Using qualitative methods for attribute development for discrete choice experiments: Issues and recommendations. Health Economics, 21(6), 730–741.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cogan, A., Sharpe, S., & Hertzberg, J. (1986). “Citizen Participation.” The practice of state and regional planning. Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Bekker-Grob, E. W., Hol, L., Donkers, B., van Dam, L., Habbema, J. D., van Leerdam, M. E., Kuipers, E. J., Essink-Bot, M. L., & Steyerberg, E. W. (2010). Labeled versus unlabeled discrete choice experiments in health economics: An application to colorectal cancer screening. Value in Health, 13(2), 315–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dolan, P. (1999). Whose preferences count? Medical Decision Making, 19(4), 482–486.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2006). The demographic future of Europe—From challenge to opportunity. COM/2006/0571. Retrieved from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/;ELX_SESSIONID=X5cbJ7hYDFQjnJHrLT7LMD1nPSNcrVk1ZmvhnnXgkVLvX0Ln11Qw!-82020822?uri=CELEX:52006DC0571

  • European Commission. (2011). Strategic implementation plan for the European innovation partnership on active and healthy ageing. Steering Group Working Document. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/research/innovation-union/pdf/active-healthy-ageing/steering-group/implementation_plan.pdf#view=fit&pagemode=none

  • European Commission. (2012). The 2012 Ageing Report, Economic and budgetary projections for the 27 EU Member States (2010–2060). European Economy 2/2012. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/publications/european_economy/2012/pdf/ee-2012-2_en.pdf

  • Eurostat. (2015). Information society statistics. Retrieved January 21, 2015, from http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/information-society/data/database

  • Helter, T. M., & Boehler, C. (2016). Developing attributes for discrete choice experiments in health—A systematic literature review and case study of alcohol misuse interventions. Journal for Substance Use, 21(6), 662–668.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huber, J., & Zwerina, K. (1996). The importance of utility balance in efficient choice designs. Journal of Marketing Research, 33, 307–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, F. R., Lancsar, E., Marshall, D., Kilambi, V., MĂĽhlbacher, A., Regier, D. A., Bresnahan, B. W., Kanninen, B., & Bridges, J. F. (2013). Constructing experimental designs for discrete-choice experiments: Report of the ISPOR conjoint analysis experimental design good research practices task force. Value in Health, 16, 3–13. Retrieved from http://www.ispor.org/ValueInHealth/ShowValueInHealth.aspx?issue=3551E3F3-83A8-4895-9415-5272AF29A9DF.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lancaster, K. J. (1966). A new approach to consumer theory. Journal of Political Economy, 74(2), 132–157. Retrieved from http://www.dklevine.com/archive/refs41385.pdf.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lancsar, E., & Louviere, J. (2008). Conducting discrete choice experiments to inform healthcare decision making: A user’s guide. PharmacoEconomics, 26(8), 661–677.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Louviere, J., Hensher, D. A., & Swait, J. D. (2000). Stated choice methods: Analysis and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Louviere, J. J., Flynn, T. N., & Carson, R. T. (2010). Discrete choice experiments are not conjoint analysis. Journal of Choice Modelling, 3(3), 57–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mangham, L. J., Hanson, K., & McPake, B. (2009). How to do (or not to do)….Designing a discrete choice experiment for application in a low-income country. Health Policy and Planning, 24, 151–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marshall, D., Bridges, J. F. P., Hauber, B., Cameron, R., Donnalley, L., Fyie, K., & Johnson, F. R. (2010). Conjoint analysis applications in health—How are studies being designed and reported? The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, 3(4), 249–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McFadden, D. (1974). Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. In P. Zarembka (Ed.), Frontiers of econometrics. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD/JRC. (2005). Handbook of constructing composite indicators: Methodology and user guide. OECD Statistics Working Paper. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/std/42495745.pdf

  • Ryan, M. (1999). Using conjoint analysis to take account of patient preferences and go beyond health outcomes: An application to in vitro fertilisation. Social Science and Medicine, 48(4), 535–546.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, M., & Farrar, S. (2000). Using conjoint analysis to elicit preferences for healthcare. BMJ, 320, 1530–1533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, M., & Gerard, K. (2003). Using discrete choice experiments to value health care programmes: Current practice and future research reflections. Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, 2(1), 55–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, A. (2002). Identifying and analysing dominant preferences in discrete choice experiments: An application in healthcare. Journal of Economic Psychology, 23(3), 383–398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sharpe, A., & Andrews, B. (2012). An assessment of weighting methodologies for composite indicators: The case of the index of economic well-being. CSLS Research Report 2012–10. Retrieved from http://www.csls.ca/reports/csls2012-10.pdf

  • Shumway, M., Saunders, T., Shern, D., Pines, E., Downs, A., Burbine, T., & Beller, J. (2003). Preferences for schizophrenia treatment outcomes among public policy makers, consumers, families, and providers. Psychiatric Services, 54(8), 1124–1128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Street, D., Burgess, L., Viney, R., & Louviere, J. (2008). Designing discrete choice experiments for healthcare. In M. Ryan, K. Gerard, & M. Amaya-Amaya (Eds.), Using discrete choice experiments to value health and healthcare. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Train, K. (2009). Discrete choice methods with simulation (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ubel, P. A., Loewenstein, G., & Jepson, C. (2003). Whose quality of life? A commentary exploring discrepancies between health state evaluations of patients and the general public. Quality of Life Research, 12(6), 599–607.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Viney, R., Lancsar, E., & Louviere, J. (2002). Discrete choice experiments to measure consumer preferences for health and healthcare. Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics Outcomes Research, 2(4), 319–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watson, V., Carnon, A., Ryan, M., & Cox, D. (2012). Involving the public in priority setting: A case study using discrete choice experiments. Journal of Public Health, 34(2), 253–260. Retrieved from http://jpubhealth.oxfordjournals.org/content/34/2/253.full.pdf+html.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • WHO. (2002). Active ageing: A policy framework. WHO/NMH/NPH/02.8. Retreievd from http://whqlibdoc.who.int/hq/2002/WHO_NMH_NPH_02.8.pdf?ua=1

  • WHO. (2012). How to conduct a discrete choice experiment for health workforce recruitment and retention in remote and rural areas: A user guide with case studies. Retrieved from http://www.who.int/hrh/resources/dceguide/en/

  • Wong, S. F., Norman, R., Dunning, T. L., Ashley, D. M., & Lorgelly, P. K. (2014). A protocol for a discrete choice experiment: Understanding preferences of patients with cancer towards their cancer care across metropolitan and rural regions in Australia. BMJ Open, 4, e006661. Retrieved from http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/4/10/e006661.full.pdf+html

  • Zaidi, A., Gasior, K., Hofmarcher, M. M., Lelkes, O., Marin, B., Rodrigues, R., Schmidt, A., Vanhuysse, P., & Zolyomi, E. (2013). Active Ageing Index 2012. Concept, methodology, and final results. Research Memorandum/Methodology Report. European Centre Vienna, March 2013. Retrieved from www.euro.centre.org/data/aai/1253897823_70974.pdf

  • Zaidi, A., & Stanton, D. (2015). Active ageing index 2014: Analytical report. Report produced at the Centre for Research on ageing, University of Southampton, under contract with UNECE (Geneva), co-funded by European Commission, Brussels. Retrieved from http://www.southampton.ac.uk/assets/sharepoint/groupsite/Administration/SitePublisher-document-store/Documents/aai_report.pdf

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. European Centre for Social Welfare Policy and Research, Vienna, Austria

    Christian Ernst Heinrich Boehler

  2. Main Association of Austrian Social Security Institutions, Vienna, Austria

    Timea Mariann Helter

  3. Chalmers University of Technology, Göteborg, Sweden

    Ibrahim-Kholilul Rohman

  4. DG JRC-IPTS, European Commission, Sevilla, Spain

    Fabienne Abadie

Authors
  1. Christian Ernst Heinrich Boehler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Timea Mariann Helter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ibrahim-Kholilul Rohman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Fabienne Abadie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom

    Asghar Zaidi

  2. University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom

    Sarah Harper

  3. University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom

    Kenneth Howse

  4. INRCA National Institute of Health and Science on Aging, Ancona, Italy

    Giovanni Lamura

  5. Jagiellonian University in KrakĂłw, KrakĂłw, Poland

    Jolanta Perek-Białas

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Boehler, C.E.H., Helter, T.M., Rohman, IK., Abadie, F. (2018). Estimating Weights for the Active Ageing Index (AAI) from Stated Preferences: Proposal for a Discrete Choice Experiment (DCE). In: Zaidi, A., Harper, S., Howse, K., Lamura, G., Perek-Białas, J. (eds) Building Evidence for Active Ageing Policies. Palgrave Macmillan, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-6017-5_12

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-6017-5_12

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-10-6016-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-10-6017-5

  • eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation