Advertisement

Eliciting Preferences from Choices: Discrete Choice Experiments

  • Martin HowellEmail author
  • Kirsten Howard
Reference work entry

Abstract

Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) have been widely used as a research tool to elicit the preferences of patients, clinicians, the community, and policy-makers for a range of health-related questions including complex interventions, treatment options, health programs (e.g., cancer screening) and policies, and health service delivery. In a DCE, treatments or health programs are described by a set of attributes with varying levels, for example, health outcomes (harms and benefits), cost, time, properties of the procedure (e.g., injection or tablet), and so on. The participant is asked to choose their preferred treatment or program. By systematically varying the attribute levels across a range of choices, preferences for health goods and services can be calculated. Unlike other preference elicitation techniques such as ranking or rating, DCEs are underpinned by a well-established and robust theoretical framework that allows estimation of a range of outputs, including the relative importance of individual attributes within a multi-attribute health program (e.g., waiting time, travel time, type of care), the trade-offs individuals may be willing to accept between attributes (e.g., side effects and survival), as well as willingness to pay and uptake of health programs. This chapter provides an overview of the theory and application of DCEs.

Keywords

Discrete choice experiments Best-worst scaling surveys Preference elicitation Preferences and values 

References

  1. Blinman P, King M, Norman R, Viney R, Stockler MR. Preferences for cancer treatments: an overview of methods and applications in oncology. Ann Oncol. 2012;23(5):1104–10.Google Scholar
  2. Braddock CH. Supporting shared decision making when clinical evidence is low. Med Care Res Rev. 2013;70(1 suppl):129S–40S.Google Scholar
  3. Brennan PF, Strombom I. Improving health care by understanding patient preferences. The Role of Computer Technology. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 1998;5(3):257–62.Google Scholar
  4. Bridges JFP, Hauber AB, Marshall DA, lloyd A, Prosser LA, Regier DA, Johnson FR, Mauskopf J. Conjoint analysis applications in health—a checklist: A report of the ISPOR good research practices for conjoint analysis task force. Value Health. 2011;14:403–13.Google Scholar
  5. Bryan S, Dolan P. Discrete choice experiments in health economics. Eur J Health Econ. 2004;5(3):199–202.Google Scholar
  6. Cairns J, van der Pol M, Lloyd A. Decision making heuristics and the elicitation of preferences: being fast and frugal about the future. Health Econ. 2002;11(7):655–8.Google Scholar
  7. Campbell D, Erdem S. Position bias in best-worst scaling surveys: a case study on Trust in Institutions. Am J Agric Econ. 2015;97(2):526–45.Google Scholar
  8. Chuck A, Adamowicz W, Jacobs P, Ohinmaa A, Dick B, Rashiq S. The willingness to pay for reducing pain and pain-related disability. Value Health. 2009;12(4):498–506.Google Scholar
  9. Clark M, Determann D, Petrou S, Moro D, de Bekker-Grob E. Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature. PharmacoEconomics. 2014;32(9):883–902.Google Scholar
  10. Committee on Quality of Health Care in America Institute of Medicine. Crossing the quality chasm: a new health system for the 21st century. Washington: National Academies Press; 2012.Google Scholar
  11. Daher M. Cultural beliefs and values in cancer patients. Ann Oncol. 2012;23(suppl 3):66–9.Google Scholar
  12. de Bekker-Grob EW, Ryan M, Gerard K. Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature. Health Econ. 2012;21(2):145–72.Google Scholar
  13. Dipchand AI. Decision-making in the face of end-stage organ failure: high-risk transplantation and end-of-life care. Curr Opin Organ Transplant. 2012;17(5):520–4.Google Scholar
  14. Dirksen C, Utens C, Joore M, van Barneveld T, Boer B, Dreesens D, van Laarhoven H, Smit C, Stiggelbout A, van der Weijden T. Integrating evidence on patient preferences in healthcare policy decisions: protocol of the patient-VIP study. Implement Sci. 2013;8(1):64.Google Scholar
  15. Epstein RM, Peters E. Beyond information: exploring patients’ preferences. JAMA. 2009;302(2):195–7.Google Scholar
  16. Flynn TN. Valuing citizen and patient preferences in health: recent developments in three types of best-worst scaling. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2010;10(3):259–67.Google Scholar
  17. Flynn TN, Louviere JJ, Peters TJ, Coast J. Best–worst scaling: what it can do for health care research and how to do it. J Health Econ. 2007;26(1):171–89.Google Scholar
  18. Gordon EJ, Butt Z, Jensen SE, Lok-Ming Lehr A, Franklin J, Becker Y, Sherman L, Chon WJ, Beauvais N, Hanneman J, Penrod D, Ison MG, Abecassis MM. Opportunities for shared decision making in kidney transplantation. Am J Transplant. 2013;13(5):1149–58.Google Scholar
  19. Groothuis-Oudshoorn C, Fermont J, van Til J, IJzerman M. Public stated preferences and predicted uptake for genome-based colorectal cancer screening. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2014;14(1):18.Google Scholar
  20. Hauber AB, González JM, Groothuis-Oudshoorn CGM, Prior T, Marshall DA, Cunningham C, Ijzerman MJ, Bridges JFP. Statistical methods for the analysis of discrete choice experiments: a report of the ISPOR conjoint analysis good research practices task force. Value Health. 2016.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2016.04.004.Google Scholar
  21. Hausman D. Preferences, value, choice, and welfare. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2012.Google Scholar
  22. Hensher D, Rose J, Greene W. Applied choice analysis: a primer. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2005.Google Scholar
  23. Hensher D, Rose J, Greene W. Inferring attribute non-attendance from stated choice data: implications for willingness to pay estimates and a warning for stated choice experiment design. Transportation. 2012;39(2):235–45.Google Scholar
  24. Hensher D, Rose J, Greene W. Applied choice analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge Books; 2016.Google Scholar
  25. Howard K, Salkeld G. Does attribute framing in discrete choice experiments influence willingness to pay? Results from a discrete choice experiment in screening for colorectal cancer. Value Health. 2009;12(2):354–63.Google Scholar
  26. Howard K, Salkeld GP, Patel MI, Mann GJ, Pignone MP. Men’s preferences and trade-offs for prostate cancer screening: a discrete choice experiment. Health Expect. 2014;18(6):3123–35.Google Scholar
  27. Howell M, Tong A, Wong G, Craig JC, Howard K. Important outcomes for kidney transplant recipients: a nominal group and qualitative study. Am J Kidney Dis. 2012;60(2):186–96.Google Scholar
  28. Howell M, Wong G, Rose J, Tong A, Craig JC, Howard K. Eliciting patient preferences, priorities and trade-offs for outcomes following kidney transplantation: a pilot best–worst scaling survey. BMJ Open. 2016;6(1)Google Scholar
  29. Howell M, Wong G, Rose J, Tong A, Craig JC, Howard K. Patient preferences for outcomes after kidney transplantation: a best-worst scaling survey. Transplantation. 2017;101(11):2765–73.Google Scholar
  30. Kan H, de Bekker-Grob E, van Marion E, van Oijen G, van Nieuwenhoven C, Zhou C, Hovius S, Selles R. Patients’ preferences for treatment for Dupuytren’s disease: a discrete choice experiment. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2016;137(1):165–73.Google Scholar
  31. Kawata A, Kleinman L, Harding G, Ramachandran S. Evaluation of patient preference and willingness to pay for attributes of maintenance medication for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Patient. 2014;7(4):413–26.Google Scholar
  32. Koltko-Rivera ME. The psychology of worldviews. Rev Gen Psychol. 2004;8(1):3–58.Google Scholar
  33. Laba T-L, Howard K, Rose J, Peiris D, Redfern J, Usherwood T, Cass A, Patel A, Jan S. Patient preferences for a Polypill for the prevention of cardiovascular diseases. Ann Pharmacother. 2015.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1060028015570468.Google Scholar
  34. Lagarde M, Erens B, Mays N. Determinants of the choice of GP practice registration in England: evidence from a discrete choice experiment. Health Policy. 2015;119(0):427–36.Google Scholar
  35. Lancsar E, Fiebig DG, Hole AR. Discrete choice experiments: a guide to model specification, estimation and software. PharmacoEconomics. 2017; 1–20Google Scholar
  36. Lancsar E, Louviere J. Deleting ‘irrational’ responses from discrete choice experiments: a case of investigating or imposing preferences? Health Econ. 2006;15(8):797–811.Google Scholar
  37. Lancsar E, Louviere J. Conducting discrete choice experiments to inform healthcare decision making: a user’s guide (practical application). PharmacoEconomics. 2008;26(8):661–77.Google Scholar
  38. Lancsar E, Louviere J, Donaldson C, Currie G, Burgess L. Best worst discrete choice experiments in health: methods and an application. Soc Sci Med. 2013;76(0):74–82.Google Scholar
  39. Lancsar E, Wildman J, Donaldson C, Ryan M, Baker R. Deriving distributional weights for QALYs through discrete choice experiments. J Health Econ. 2011;30(2):466–78.Google Scholar
  40. Légaré F, Turcotte S, Stacey D, Ratté S, Kryworuchko J, Graham ID. Patients’ perceptions of sharing in decisions. Patient. 2012;5(1):1–19.Google Scholar
  41. Lloyd AJ. Threats to the estimation of benefit: are preference elicitation methods accurate? Health Econ. 2003;12(5):393–402.Google Scholar
  42. Louviere J, Flynn TN, Marley AAJ. Best-worst scaling theory, methods and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2015.Google Scholar
  43. Marley AAJ, Flynn TN, Louviere JJ. Probabilistic models of set-dependent and attribute-level best–worst choice. J Math Psychol. 2008;52(5):281–96.Google Scholar
  44. Martin SC, Stone AM, Scott AM, Brashers DE. Medical, personal, and social forms of uncertainty across the transplantation trajectory. Qual Health Res. 2010;20(2):182–96.Google Scholar
  45. McFadden D. Economic choices. Am Econ Rev. 2001;91(3):351–78.Google Scholar
  46. Mühlbacher A, Juhnke C. Patient preferences versus physicians’ judgement: does it make a difference in healthcare decision making? Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2013;11(3):163–80.Google Scholar
  47. Mühlbacher AC, Kaczynski A, Zweifel P, Johnson FR. Experimental measurement of preferences in health and healthcare using best-worst scaling: an overview. Heal Econ Rev. 2016;6(1):1–14.Google Scholar
  48. Murray MA, Brunier G, Chung JO, Craig LA, Mills C, Thomas A, Stacey D. A systematic review of factors influencing decision-making in adults living with chronic kidney disease. Patient Educ Couns. 2009;76(2):149–58.Google Scholar
  49. Norman R, Viney R, Brazier J, Burgess L, Cronin P, King M, Ratcliffe J, Street D. Valuing SF-6D health states using a discrete choice experiment. Med Decis Mak. 2013;34(6):773–86.Google Scholar
  50. Persad G, Wertheimer A, Emanuel EJ. Principles for allocation of scarce medical interventions. Lancet. 2009;373(9661):423–31.Google Scholar
  51. Pignone M, Howard K, Brenner A. Comparing 3 techniques for eliciting patient values for decision making about prostate-specific antigen screening: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA Intern Med. 2013;173(5):362–8.Google Scholar
  52. Ratcliffe J, Brazier J, Tsuchiya A, Symonds T, Brown M. Using DCE and ranking data to estimate cardinal values for health states for deriving a preference-based single index from the sexual quality of life questionnaire. Health Econ. 2009;18(11):1261–76.Google Scholar
  53. Ratcliffe J, Couzner L, Flynn T, Sawyer M, Stevens K, Brazier J, Burgess L. Valuing child health utility 9D health states with a young adolescent sample: a feasibility study to compare best-worst scaling discrete-choice experiment, standard gamble and time trade-off methods. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2011;9(1):15–27.Google Scholar
  54. Johnson FR, Lancsar E, Marshall D, Kilambi V, Mühlbacher A, Regier DA, Bresnahan BW, Kanninen B, Bridges JFP. Constructing experimental designs for discrete-choice experiments: report of the ISPOR conjoint analysis experimental design good research practices task force. Value Health. 2013;16(1):3–13.Google Scholar
  55. Regier DA, Friedman JM, Makela N, Ryan M, Marra CA. Valuing the benefit of diagnostic testing for genetic causes of idiopathic developmental disability: willingness to pay from families of affected children. Clin Genet. 2009;75(6):514–21.Google Scholar
  56. Richardson G, Manca A. Calculation of quality adjusted life years in the published literature: a review of methodology and transparency. Health Econ. 2004;13(12):1203–10.Google Scholar
  57. Rose J. Interpreting discrete choice models based on best-worst data: A matter of framing. Paper No. 12–3103-1. Transportation Research Board 93rd Annual General Meeting. Washington, DC. 2014.Google Scholar
  58. Rose JM, Bliemer MCJ. Sample size requirements for stated choice experiments. Transportation. 2013;40(5):1021–41.Google Scholar
  59. Rose JM, Bliemer MCJ, Hensher DA, Collins AT. Designing efficient stated choice experiments in the presence of reference alternatives. Transp Res B Methodol. 2008;42(4):395–406.Google Scholar
  60. Ryan M, Watson V, Entwistle V. Rationalising the ‘irrational’: a think aloud study of discrete choice experiment responses. Health Econ. 2009;18(3):321–36.Google Scholar
  61. Salkeld G, Ryan M, Short L. The veil of experience: do consumers prefer what they know best? Health Econ. 2000;9(3):267–70.Google Scholar
  62. Slovic P. The construction of preference. Am Psychol. 1995;50(5):364–71.Google Scholar
  63. Slovic P, Peters E, Finucane ML, Macgregor DG. Affect, risk, and decision making. Health Psychol. 2005;24(4 Suppl):S35–40.Google Scholar
  64. Street RL Jr, Elwyn G, Epstein RM. Patient preferences and healthcare outcomes: an ecological perspective. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2012;12(2):167–80.Google Scholar
  65. Torrance GW. Measurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal. J Health Econ. 1986;5(1):1–30.Google Scholar
  66. Train KE. Discrete choice methods with simulation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2009.Google Scholar
  67. Ubel PA, Loewenstein G, Schwarz N, Smith D. Misimagining the unimaginable: the disability paradox and health care decision making. Health Psychol. 2005;24(4):S57–62.Google Scholar
  68. Vass CM, Rigby D, Payne K. Investigating the heterogeneity in Women’s preferences for breast screening: does the communication of risk matter? Value Health. 2017;Google Scholar
  69. Viney R, Norman R, Brazier J, Cronin P, King MT, Ratcliffe J, Street D. An Australian discrete choice experiment to value eq-5d health states. Health Econ. 2014;23(6):729–42.Google Scholar
  70. von Arx L-B, Kjær T. The patient perspective of diabetes care: a systematic review of stated preference research. Patient. 2014;7(3):283–300.Google Scholar
  71. Whitty JA, Ratcliffe J, Chen G, Scuffham PA. Australian public preferences for the funding of new health technologies: a comparison of discrete choice and profile case best-worst scaling methods. Med Decis Mak. 2014a;34(5):638–54.Google Scholar
  72. Whitty JA, Walker R, Golenko X, Ratcliffe J. A think aloud study comparing the validity and acceptability of discrete choice and best worst scaling methods. PLoS One. 2014b;9(4):e90635.Google Scholar
  73. Wijnen B, van der Putten I, Groothuis S, de Kinderen R, Noben C, Paulus A, Ramaekers B, Vogel GC, Hiligsmann M. Discrete-choice experiments versus rating scale exercises to evaluate the importance of attributes. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2015;15(4):721–8.Google Scholar
  74. Wortley S, Wong G, Kieu A, Howard K. Assessing stated preferences for colorectal cancer screening: a critical systematic review of discrete choice experiments. Patient. 2014;7(3):271–82.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Public HealthUniversity of SydneySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations