Does the Inclusion of a Cost Attribute in Forced and Unforced Choices Matter?: Results from a Web Survey Applying the Discrete Choice Experiment

The cost attribute is of particular importance in discrete choice experiments, and this study is the first to explore the effect of a cost attribute on both forced and unforced choices. Patients' preferences for organisational characteristics in general practice in Denmark are elicited, and the cost attribute is operationalised as user fees for the consultation. A representative sample of 1435 respondents from the Danish population answered the discrete choice experiment in a web-based questionnaire with a random split including/excluding the cost attribute. The two groups were asked to make both forced and unforced choices in each choice set. Our results show that in the unforced choice utility and scale parameters were not affected and the rank order remained the same when a cost attribute was included. In the forced choice the test of equal utility parameters was rejected, and rank order, marginal rates of substitution, and variance was shown to differ between the two groups. We observed that the inclusion of a cost attribute tended to change underlying choice behaviour. Evidence of potential dominant preferences was found in all splits.

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

[2]  Dorte Gyrd-Hansen,et al.  Choke Price Bias in Choice Experiments , 2010 .

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

[4]  Tim Futing Liao,et al.  Multinomial Logit Models , 1994 .

[5]  J. R. DeShazo,et al.  Designing Choice Sets for Stated Preference Methods: The Effects of Complexity on Choice Consistency , 2002 .

[6]  J. Bennett,et al.  The choice modelling approach to environmental valuation , 2001 .

[7]  C. Dirksen,et al.  Does the Inclusion of a Cost Attribute Result in Different Preferences for the Surgical Treatment of Primary Basal Cell Carcinoma? , 2010, PharmacoEconomics.

[8]  F. Johnson,et al.  Opt-out alternatives and anglers' stated preferences , 2000 .

[9]  Andreas Kontoleon,et al.  Assessing the impacts of alternative 'Opt-out' formats in choice experiment studies: Consumer preferences for genetically modified content and production information in food , 2003 .

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

[11]  Jordan J. Louviere,et al.  An exploratory analysis of the effect of numbers of choice sets in designed choice experiments: an airline choice application , 2001 .

[12]  William L. Moore,et al.  The no-choice option and dual response choice designs , 2006 .

[13]  D. Hensher.  How do respondents process stated choice experiments? Attribute consideration under varying information load , 2006 .

[14]  S. Neuman,et al.  Explorations of the Effect of Experience on Preferences for a Health-Care Service , 2007 .

[15]  A. Scott,et al.  Identifying and analysing dominant preferences in discrete choice experiments: An application in health care , 2002 .

[16]  F. Johnson,et al.  How does cost matter in health-care discrete-choice experiments? , 2011, Health economics.

[17]  Norimichi Toyomane.  Multinomial Logit Models of Trade Coefficients , 1988 .

[18]  David A. Hensher,et al.  Non-attendance and dual processing of common-metric attributes in choice analysis: a latent class specification , 2010 .

[19]  J. Ratcliffe,et al.  INVESTIGATING THE STRUCTURAL RELIABILITY OF A DISCRETE CHOICE EXPERIMENT WITHIN HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT , 2002, International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care.

[20]  D. Hensher,et al.  Assessing the influence of design dimensions on stated choice experiment estimates , 2005 .

[21]  M. Ryan,et al.  Modelling non-demanders in choice experiments. , 2004, Health economics.

[22]  Stirling Bryan,et al.  Structural reliability of conjoint measurement in health care: an empirical investigation , 2002 .

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

[24]  R. Dhar.  The Effect of Decision Strategy on Deciding to Defer Choice , 1996 .

[25]  John Rolfe,et al.  The impact of offering two versus three alternatives in choice modelling experiments , 2009 .

[26]  K. Lancaster.  A New Approach to Consumer Theory , 1966, Journal of Political Economy.

[27]  Emily Lancsar,et al.  Discrete choice experiments to measure consumer preferences for health and healthcare , 2002, Expert review of pharmacoeconomics & outcomes research.

[28]  M. Couper.  A REVIEW OF ISSUES AND APPROACHES , 2000 .

[29]  Emily Lancsar,et al.  Deleting 'irrational' responses from discrete choice experiments: a case of investigating or imposing preferences? , 2006, Health economics.

[30]  Jordan J. Louviere,et al.  Combining sources of preference data , 1998 .

[31]  M. Buxton,et al.  Magnetic resonance imaging for the investigation of knee injuries: an investigation of preferences. , 1998, Health economics.

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

[33]  David A. Hensher,et al.  The implications on willingness to pay of respondents ignoring specific attributes , 2004 .

[34]  Mickael Bech,et al.  Ordering effect and price sensitivity in discrete choice experiments: need we worry? , 2006, Health economics.

[35]  Arne Risa Hole,et al.  A comparison of approaches to estimating confidence intervals for willingness to pay measures. , 2007, Health economics.

[36]  P. Boxall,et al.  Complexity in Choice Experiments: Choice of the Status Quo Alternative and Implications for Welfare Measurement , 2009 .

[37]  R. Dhar.  Consumer Preference for a No-Choice Option , 1997 .

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

[39]  D. McFadden.  Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior , 1972 .

[40]  Mandy Ryan,et al.  Testing for an experience endowment effect in health care , 2003 .

[41]  Roger J. Best,et al.  Conjoint Measurement: Temporal Stability and Structural Reliability , 1979 .

[42]  Robert E. Wright,et al.  Price vector effects in choice experiments: an empirical test , 2005 .

[43]  J. Ratcliffe.  THE USE OF CONJOINT ANALYSIS TO ELICIT WILLINGNESS-TO-PAY VALUES , 2000, International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care.

[44]  Dorte Gyrd-Hansen,et al.  Conjoint analysis. The cost variable: an Achilles' heel? , 2003, Health economics.

[45]  Joffre Swait,et al.  Stated Choice Methods: Relaxing the IID assumption – introducing variants of the MNL model , 2000 .

[46]  Ta Theo Arentze,et al.  Transport stated choice responses: effects of task complexity, presentation format and literacy , 2003 .

[47]  Arne Risa Hole,et al.  Small-sample properties of tests for heteroscedasticity in the conditional logit model , 2006 .

[48]  F. Carlsson,et al.  Preferences with and without prices - does the price attribute affect behavior in stated preference surveys? , 2007 .

[49]  B. Donkers,et al.  Which preferred providers are really preferred? Effectiveness of insurers’ channeling incentives on pharmacy choice , 2009, International Journal of Health Care Finance and Economics.

[50]  Fredrik Carlsson,et al.  Dealing with Ignored Attributes in Choice Experiments on Valuation of Sweden’s Environmental Quality Objectives , 2010 .

[51]  R. Dhar,et al.  The Effect of Forced Choice on Choice , 2003 .

[52]  Vikki Entwistle,et al.  Rationalising the 'irrational': a think aloud study of discrete choice experiment responses. , 2009, Health economics.

[53]  C. Manski.  The structure of random utility models , 1977 .