Assessing the impact of excluded attributes on choice in a discrete choice experiment using a follow-up question.

Health researchers design discrete choice experiments (DCEs) to elicit preferences over attributes that define treatments. A DCE can accommodate a limited number of attributes selected by researchers based on numerous factors (e.g., respondent comprehension, cognitive burden, and sample size). For situations where researchers want information about the possible impact of an attribute excluded from the DCE, we propose a method to use a question after the DCE. This follow-up question includes the attributes in the DCE with fixed levels and an additional attribute originally excluded from the DCE. The DCE data can be used to predict the probability that respondents would select one treatment profile over another without the additional attribute. Comparing the prediction to the percentage of the sample who selected each profile when it includes the additional attribute provides information on the potential impact of the additional attribute. We provide an example using data from a DCE on treatments for chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Cost was excluded from the DCE, but the survey included a follow-up question with two fixed treatment profiles, similar to two treatments currently on the market, and a cost for each. Preferences were sensitive to modest changes in cost, highlighting the importance of gathering this information.

[1]  John M. Rose,et al.  Applied Choice Analysis: List of tables , 2005 .

[2]  Mandy Ryan,et al.  Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature. , 2012, Health economics.

[3]  Riccardo Scarpa,et al.  Designs with a priori information for nonmarket valuation with choice experiments: A Monte Carlo study , 2007 .

[4]  M. Boeri,et al.  Patients' priorities in selecting chronic lymphocytic leukemia treatments. , 2017, Blood advances.

[5]  Mandy Ryan,et al.  Using discrete choice experiments to value health and health care , 2008 .

[6]  Mandy Ryan,et al.  For better or worse? Investigating the validity of best–worst discrete choice experiments in health , 2019, Health economics.

[7]  John M. Rose,et al.  Applied Choice Analysis: List of tables , 2005 .

[8]  David A. Hensher,et al.  The Mixed Logit Model: the State of Practice and Warnings for the Unwary , 2001 .

[9]  John M. Rose,et al.  Using Classical Simulation-Based Estimators to Estimate Individual WTP Values , 2005 .

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

[11]  K. Train,et al.  On the Similarity of Classical and Bayesian Estimates of Individual Mean Partworths , 2000 .

[12]  K. Train.  Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation , 2003 .

[13]  R. Scarpa,et al.  Destination Choice Models for Rock Climbing in the Northeastern Alps: A Latent-Class Approach Based on Intensity of Preferences , 2005, Land Economics.

[14]  Alan R. Ellis,et al.  Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: Past, Present and Future , 2018, PharmacoEconomics.

[15]  John M. Rose,et al.  Applied Choice Analysis: A Primer , 2005 .