Use of discrete choice experiments to elicit preferences

This paper considers the application of discrete choice experiments for eliciting preferences in the delivery of health care. Drawing upon the results from a recently completed systematic review, the paper summarises the application of this technique in health care. It then presents a case study applying the technique to rheumatology outpatient clinics. 200 patients were questioned about the importance of six attributes: staff seen (junior doctor or specialist nurse); time in waiting area; continuity of contact with same staff; provision of a phone-in/advice service; length of consultation; and change in pain levels. The systematic review indicated that discrete choice experiments have been applied to a wide number of areas and a number of methodological issues have been addressed. Consistent with this literature, the case study found evidence of both rationality and theoretical validity of responses. The approach was used to establish the relative importance of different attributes, how individuals trade between these attributes, and overall benefit scores for different clinic configurations. The value of attributes was estimated in terms of time, and this was converted to a monetary measure using the value of waiting time for public transport. Discrete choice experiments represent a potentially useful instrument for eliciting preferences. Future methodological work should explore issues related to the experimental design of the study, methods of data collection and analysis, and satisfaction with the economic axioms of the instrument. Collaborative work with psychologists and qualitative researchers will prove useful in this research agenda.

[1]  Jordan J. Louviere,et al.  Perceptions versus Objective Measures of Environmental Quality in Combined Revealed and Stated Preference Models of Environmental Valuation , 1997 .

[2]  M Ryan,et al.  Eliciting public preferences for healthcare: a systematic review of techniques. , 2001, Health technology assessment.

[3]  C. Warwick.  The new NHS: modern dependable , 1998 .

[4]  J. Hill.  The expanding role of the nurse in rheumatology. , 1997, British journal of rheumatology.

[5]  Elizabeth C. Hirschman,et al.  Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases , 1974, Science.

[6]  D. Emery,et al.  Axiomatic and numerical conjoint measurement: An evaluation of diagnostic efficacy , 1979 .

[7]  V. Wright,et al.  An evaluation of the effectiveness, safety and acceptability of a nurse practitioner in a rheumatology outpatient clinic. , 1994, British journal of rheumatology.

[8]  G. W. Fischer,et al.  Strategy compatibility, scale compatibility, and the prominence effect. , 1993 .

[9]  P. Todd,et al.  Simple Heuristics That Make Us Smart , 1999 .

[10]  A Gafni,et al.  Health care contingent valuation studies: a review and classification of the literature. , 1998, Health economics.

[11]  Nicholas E. Flores,et al.  Contingent Valuation: Controversies and Evidence , 2000 .

[12]  Sarah Wordsworth,et al.  Sensitivity of Willingness to Pay Estimates to the Level of Attributes in Discrete Choice Experiments , 2000 .

[13]  P. Schmidt,et al.  Limited-Dependent and Qualitative Variables in Econometrics. , 1984 .

[14]  J. Payne,et al.  How People Respond to Contingent Valuation Questions: A Verbal Protocol Analysis of Willingness to Pay for an Environmental Regulation , 1994 .

[15]  F. Johnson,et al.  Willingness to pay for improved respiratory and cardiovascular health: a multiple-format, stated-preference approach. , 2000, Health economics.

[16]  Susan M. Chilton,et al.  A note on the warm glow of giving and scope sensitivity in contingent valuation studies , 2000 .

[17]  Kevin J. Boyle,et al.  An Investigation of Part-Whole Biases in Contingent-Valuation Studies , 1993 .

[18]  M. Ryan,et al.  Using Conjoint Analysis to Value Surgical Versus Medical Management of Miscarriage , 1995 .

[19]  Mandy Ryan,et al.  Testing for consistency in willingness to pay experiments , 2000 .

[20]  R. Sugden,et al.  Regret Theory: An alternative theory of rational choice under uncertainty Review of Economic Studies , 1982 .

[21]  K. Train,et al.  Mixed Logit with Repeated Choices: Households' Choices of Appliance Efficiency Level , 1998, Review of Economics and Statistics.

[22]  T. F. Weaver,et al.  Evaluating Impacts from Noxious Facilities: Including Public Preferences in Current Siting Mechanisms , 1993 .