Do people have differing motivations for participating in a stated-preference study? Results from a latent-class analysis

Background Researchers and policy makers have long suspected that people have differing, and potentially nefarious, motivations for participating in stated-preference studies such as discrete-choice experiments (DCE). While anecdotes and theories exist on why people participate in surveys, there is a paucity of evidence exploring variation in preferences for participating in stated-preference studies. Methods We used a DCE to estimate preferences for participating in preference research among an online survey panel sample. Preferences for the characteristics of a study to be conducted at a local hospital were assessed across five attributes (validity, relevance, bias, burden, time and payment) and described across three levels using a starring system. A D-efficient experimental design was used to construct three blocks of 12 choice tasks with two profiles each. Respondents were also asked about factors that motivated their choices. Mixed logistic regression was used to analyze the aggregate sample and latent class analysis identified segments of respondents. Results 629 respondents completed the experiment. In aggregate “study validity” was most important. Latent class results identified two segments based on underlying motivations: a quality-focused segment (76%) who focused most on validity, relevance, and bias and a convenience-focused segment (24%) who focused most on reimbursement and time. Quality-focused respondents spent more time completing the survey ( p  < 0.001) and were more likely to identify data quality ( p  < 0.01) and societal well-being ( p  < 0.01) as motivations to participate. Conclusions This information can be used to better understand variability in motivations to participate in stated-preference surveys and the impact of motivations on response quality.

[1]  Christian A. Vossler,et al.  Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies , 2017, Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists.

[2]  Duncan Mortimer,et al.  Lost in the crowd? Using eye-tracking to investigate the effect of complexity on attribute non-attendance in discrete choice experiments , 2015, BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making.

[3]  Maarten J. IJzerman,et al.  Statistical Methods for the Analysis of Discrete Choice Experiments: A Report of the ISPOR Conjoint Analysis Good Research Practices Task Force. , 2016, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[4]  K. Marsh,et al.  Assessing Rationality in Discrete Choice Experiments in Health: An Investigation into the Use of Dominance Tests. , 2018, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[5]  Deborah Marshall,et al.  Constructing experimental designs for discrete-choice experiments: report of the ISPOR Conjoint Analysis Experimental Design Good Research Practices Task Force. , 2013, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[6]  Mickael Bech,et al.  Designing a stated choice experiment: The value of a qualitative process , 2012 .

[7]  A. Brett Hauber,et al.  Quantifying Benefit–Risk Preferences for Medical Interventions: An Overview of a Growing Empirical Literature , 2013, Applied Health Economics and Health Policy.

[8]  John F P Bridges,et al.  Improving the quality of discrete-choice experiments in health: how can we assess validity and reliability? , 2017, Expert review of pharmacoeconomics & outcomes research.

[9]  J. Segal,et al.  Perceived Barriers and Potential Strategies to Improve Self-Management Among Adults with Type 2 Diabetes: A Community-Engaged Research Approach , 2016, The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research.

[10]  Tanjala S. Purnell,et al.  Patient Preferences for the Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes: A Scoping Review , 2013, PharmacoEconomics.

[11]  J. Bridges,et al.  Education and patient preferences for treating type 2 diabetes: a stratified discrete-choice experiment , 2017, Patient preference and adherence.

[12]  J. Louviere,et al.  The Role of the Scale Parameter in the Estimation and Comparison of Multinomial Logit Models , 1993 .

[13]  J. Bridges,et al.  Methods for measuring patient preferences: an update and future directions , 2019, Current opinion in rheumatology.

[14]  Caroline Vass,et al.  The Role of Qualitative Research Methods in Discrete Choice Experiments , 2017, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[15]  John A. Johnson Ascertaining the validity of individual protocols from Web-based personality inventories. , 2005 .

[16]  J. Bridges,et al.  Developing a Patient-Centered Benefit-Risk Survey: A Community-Engaged Process. , 2016, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[17]  John F P Bridges,et al.  A Framework for Instrument Development of a Choice Experiment: An Application to Type 2 Diabetes , 2016, The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research.

[18]  Mandy Ryan,et al.  'Irrational' stated preferences: a quantitative and qualitative investigation. , 2005, Health economics.

[19]  F. Johnson,et al.  Who pays attention in stated-choice surveys? , 2009, Health economics.

[20]  Martin Wetzels,et al.  Individual Differences in Motivation to Participate in Online Panels , 2011 .

[21]  J. Bridges,et al.  Explore preference heterogeneity for treatment among people with Type 2 diabetes: A comparison of random-parameters and latent-class estimation techniques , 2019, Journal of Choice Modelling.

[22]  Hilde van der Togt,et al.  Publisher's Note , 2003, J. Netw. Comput. Appl..

[23]  Lisa A Prosser,et al.  Statistical Methods for the Analysis of Discrete-Choice Experiments: A Report of the ISPOR Conjoint Analysis Good Research Practices Task Force. , 2016, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[24]  J. Bridges,et al.  Using Latent Class Analysis to Model Preference Heterogeneity in Health: A Systematic Review , 2018, PharmacoEconomics.

[25]  J. Swait A structural equation model of latent segmentation and product choice for cross-sectional revealed preference choice data☆ , 1994 .

[26]  Joanna Coast,et al.  Using qualitative methods for attribute development for discrete choice experiments: issues and recommendations. , 2012, Health economics.

[27]  F Reed Johnson,et al.  The Internal Validity of Discrete Choice Experiment Data: A Testing Tool for Quantitative Assessments. , 2019, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[28]  D. McFadden,et al.  MIXED MNL MODELS FOR DISCRETE RESPONSE , 2000 .

[29]  P. Curran Methods for the detection of carelessly invalid responses in survey data , 2016 .

[30]  A. Hauber,et al.  Conducting a Discrete-Choice Experiment Study Following Recommendations for Good Research Practices: An Application for Eliciting Patient Preferences for Diabetes Treatments. , 2018, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[31]  J. Louviere,et al.  Conducting Discrete Choice Experiments to Inform Healthcare Decision Making , 2012, PharmacoEconomics.

[32]  Andrew Lloyd,et al.  Conjoint analysis applications in health--a checklist: a report of the ISPOR Good Research Practices for Conjoint Analysis Task Force. , 2011, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[33]  Mickael Bech,et al.  Does the number of choice sets matter? Results from a web survey applying a discrete choice experiment. , 2011, Health economics.