Estimating preferences for a dermatology consultation using Best-Worst Scaling: Comparison of various methods of analysis

BackgroundAdditional insights into patient preferences can be gained by supplementing discrete choice experiments with best-worst choice tasks. However, there are no empirical studies illustrating the relative advantages of the various methods of analysis within a random utility framework.MethodsMultinomial and weighted least squares regression models were estimated for a discrete choice experiment. The discrete choice experiment incorporated a best-worst study and was conducted in a UK NHS dermatology context. Waiting time, expertise of doctor, convenience of attending and perceived thoroughness of care were varied across 16 hypothetical appointments. Sample level preferences were estimated for all models and differences between patient subgroups were investigated using covariate-adjusted multinomial logistic regression.ResultsA high level of agreement was observed between results from the paired model (which is theoretically consistent with the 'maxdiff' choice model) and the marginal model (which is only an approximation to it). Adjusting for covariates showed that patients who felt particularly affected by their skin condition during the previous week displayed extreme preference for short/no waiting time and were less concerned about other aspects of the appointment. Higher levels of educational attainment were associated with larger differences in utility between the levels of all attributes, although the attributes per se had the same impact upon choices as those with lower levels of attainment. The study also demonstrated the high levels of agreement between summary analyses using weighted least squares and estimates from multinomial models.ConclusionRobust policy-relevant information on preferences can be obtained from discrete choice experiments incorporating best-worst questions with relatively small sample sizes. The separation of the effects due to attribute impact from the position of levels on the latent utility scale is not possible using traditional discrete choice experiments. This separation is important because health policies to change the levels of attributes in health care may be very different from those aiming to change the attribute impact per se. The good approximation of summary analyses to the multinomial model is a useful finding, because weighted least squares choice totals give better insights into the choice model and promote greater familiarity with the preference data.

[1]  H. Timmermans,et al.  Stated preference and choice models applied to recreation research : a review , 1990 .

[2]  Joanna Coast,et al.  Maximising Responses to Discrete Choice Experiments , 2006, Applied health economics and health policy.

[3]  G. Koch,et al.  Analysis of categorical data by linear models. , 1969, Biometrics.

[4]  D. Hensher,et al.  Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Applications , 2000 .

[5]  J. Louviere,et al.  Determining the Appropriate Response to Evidence of Public Concern: The Case of Food Safety , 1992 .

[6]  Jordan J. Louviere,et al.  What You Don’t Know Might Hurt You: Some Unresolved Issues in the Design and Analysis of Discrete Choice Experiments , 2006 .

[7]  Jordan J. Louviere,et al.  What If Consumer Experiments Impact Variances as Well as Means? Response Variability as a Behavioral Phenomenon , 2001 .

[8]  Joanna Coast,et al.  Economic evaluation of a general practitioner with special interests led dermatology service in primary care , 2005, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[9]  Joanna Coast,et al.  Developing attributes and levels for discrete choice experiments using qualitative methods , 2007, Journal of health services research & policy.

[10]  J Coast,et al.  Preferences for aspects of a dermatology consultation , 2006, The British journal of dermatology.

[11]  J. Yellott The relationship between Luce's Choice Axiom, Thurstone's Theory of Comparative Judgment, and the double exponential distribution , 1977 .

[12]  Joanna Coast,et al.  Evaluation of a general practitioner with special interest service for dermatology: randomised controlled trial , 2005, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[13]  Jordan J. Louviere,et al.  Modeling the choices of individual decision-makers by combining efficient choice experiment designs with extra preference information , 2008 .

[14]  Emily Lancsar,et al.  Several methods to investigate relative attribute impact in stated preference experiments. , 2007, Social science & medicine.

[15]  Mandy Ryan,et al.  Using discrete choice experiments to go beyond clinical outcomes when evaluating clinical practice. , 2005, Journal of evaluation in clinical practice.

[16]  Jordan J. Louviere,et al.  Modeling the effects of including/excluding attributes in choice experiments on systematic and random components , 2007 .

[17]  William F. McGhan,et al.  Using Conjoint Analysis to Evaluate Health State Preferences , 1999 .

[18]  Jordan J. Louviere,et al.  Design and Analysis of Simulated Consumer Choice or Allocation Experiments: An Approach Based on Aggregate Data , 1983 .

[19]  Mickael Bech,et al.  Effects coding in discrete choice experiments. , 2005, Health economics.

[20]  A. Finlay,et al.  Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI)—a simple practical measure for routine clinical use , 1994, Clinical and experimental dermatology.

[21]  J. Louviere,et al.  Some probabilistic models of best, worst, and best–worst choices , 2005 .

[22]  T. Peters,et al.  Best--worst scaling: What it can do for health care research and how to do it. , 2007, Journal of health economics.

[23]  J. Louviere,et al.  Probabilistic models of set-dependent and attribute-level best-worst choice , 2008 .

[24]  Emily Lancsar,et al.  Deriving welfare measures from discrete choice experiments: inconsistency between current methods and random utility and welfare theory. , 2004, Health economics.