Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Consumers' Preferences and Willingness to Pay for Personalised Nutrition

  • Original Research Article
  • Published:
Applied Health Economics and Health Policy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction

Personalised nutrition (PN) has great potential for disease prevention, particularly if coupled with the power and accessibility of mobile technology. However, success of PN interventions will depend on the willingness of users to subscribe. This study investigates the factors associated with potential users' perceived value of PN and heterogeneity in these values.

Methods

A discrete choice experiment was carried out in a representative sample (N = 429 valid responses) from the adult population in Spain. The results were analysed in line with McFadden's Random Utility Theory, using conditional and mixed logit models in addition to a latent class logit model.

Results

The conditional and mixed logit models revealed the existence of a significant preference and willingness to pay for personalised nutrition, but the effect on average was not large for the highest level of personalisation. The latent class logit revealed four classes of respondent: those who would be likely to pay for a high level of personalised nutrition service, those who would use it if it were heavily subsidised, those who would use only a basic nutrition service, and those who would not be willing to engage. These results could be useful for the design and targeting of effective personalised nutrition services.

Conclusions

Over half of adults currently perceive some individual benefit in a high level of PN, which may justify some degree of public subsidy in investment and delivery of such a service.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. World Health Organization. Deaths from NCDs. In: Noncommunicable diseases. World Health Organization. 2015. https://www.who.int/gho/ncd/mortality_morbidity/ncd_total_text/en/. Accessed 15 Jan 2020.

  2. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Chronic diseases and associated risk factors in Australia. Canberra: AIHW; 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  3. World Health Organization. Global status report on noncommunicable diseases. Geneva: WHO; 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Bloom DE, Cafiero ET, Jané-Llopis E, Abrahams-Gessel S, Bloom LR, Fathima S, Feigl AB, Gaziano T, Mowafi M, Pandya A, Prettner K, Rosenberg L, Seligman B, Stein AZ, Weinstein C. The global economic burden of noncommunicable diseases. Geneva: World Economic Forum; 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  5. World Health Organization. WHO’s Human Genetics areas of work. World Health Organization; 2016. https://www.who.int/genomics/about/commondiseases/en/.

  6. Willett WC. Diet and health: what should we eat? Science. 1994;264(5158):532–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Hu FB. Dietary pattern analysis: a new direction in nutritional epidemiology. Curr Opin Lipidol. 2002;13(1):3–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Minich DM, Bland JS. Personalized lifestyle medicine: Relevance for nutrition and lifestyle recommendations. Sci World J. 2013;2013.

  9. Mozaffarian D. Dietary and policy priorities for cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and obesity. Circulation. 2016;133(2):187–225.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Joost HG, Gibney MJ, Cashman KD, Görman U, Hesketh JE, Mueller M, et al. Personalised nutrition: status and perspectives. Br J Nutr. 2007;98:26–31.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Sonnenburg JL, Bäckhed F. Diet-microbiota interactions as moderators of human metabolism. Nature. 2016;535(7610):56–64.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Ordovas JM, Ferguson LR, Tai ES, Mathers JC. Personalised nutrition and health. BMJ. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.k2173.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Zeevi D, Korem T, Zmora N, Israeli D, Rothschild D, Weinberger A, et al. Personalized nutrition by prediction of glycemic responses. Cell. 2015;163(5):1079–94.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Ley RE, Turnbaugh PJ, Klein S, Gordon JI. Microbial ecology: Human gut microbes associated with obesity. Nature. 2006;444(7122):1022–3.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. David LA, Maurice CF, Carmody RN, Gootenberg DB, Button JE, Wolfe BE, et al. Diet rapidly and reproducibly alters the human gut microbiome. Nature. 2014;505(7484):559–63.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Smart Technologies for person. Alised nutrition and consumer engagement | Stance4Health Project | H2020 | CORDIS | European Commission. 2020. https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/816303.

  17. Zhao J, Freeman B, Li M. Can mobile phone apps influence people’s health behavior change? An evidence review. J Med Internet Res. 2016;18.

  18. Bol N, Helberger N, Weert JCM. Differences in mobile health app use: a source of new digital inequalities? Inf Soc. 2018;34(3):183–93 (cited 2020 Sep 8).

  19. Yang X, Ma L, Zhao X, Kankanhalli A. Factors influencing user’s adherence to physical activity applications: a scoping literature review and future directions. Int J Med Inf. 2020; 134:104039.

  20. Torrance GW. Measurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal. J Health Econ. 1986. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-6296(86)90020-2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Hausman J. Contingent valuation: from dubious to hopeless. J Econ Perspect. 2012;26(4):43–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Soekhai V, de Bekker-Grob EW, Ellis AR, Vass CM. Discrete choice experiments in health economics: past, present and future [Internet]. PharmacoEconomics. 2019;37:201–26.

  23. Baltas G, Doyle P. Random utility models in marketing research: a survey. J Bus Res. 2001;51(2):115–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Michie S, Yardley L, West R, Patrick K, Greaves F. Developing and evaluating digital interventions to promote behavior change in health and health care: recommendations resulting from an international workshop. J Med Internet Res; 2017;19:e232 (cited 2020 Jul 27).

  25. Haugen HA, Tran ZV, Wyatt HR, Barry MJ, Hill JO. Using Telehealth to increase participation in weight maintenance programs**. Obesity. 2007;15(12):3067–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Poínhos R, van der Lans IA, Rankin A, Fischer ARH, Bunting B, Kuznesof S, et al. Psychological determinants of consumer acceptance of personalised nutrition in 9 European Countries. PLoS One. 2014;9(10):e110614 (Internet).

  27. Fischer ARH, Berezowska A, Van Der Lans IA, Ronteltap A, Rankin A, Kuznesof S, et al. Willingness to pay for personalised nutrition across Europe. Eur J Public Health. 2016;26(4):640–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Mustapa MAC, Amin L, Frewer LJ. Predictors of stakeholders’ intention to adopt nutrigenomics. Genes Nutr. 2020;15(1):1–15 (cited 2021 Feb 1).

  29. Vallée Marcotte B, Cormier H, Garneau V, Robitaille J, Desroches S, Vohl M-C. Nutrigenetic testing for personalized nutrition: an evaluation of public perceptions, attitudes, and concerns in a Population of French Canadians. Lifestyle Genomics. 2018;11(3–6):155–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Veldwijk J, Lambooij MS, Van Gils PF, Struijs JN, Smit HA, De Wit GA. Type 2 diabetes patients’ preferences and willingness to pay for lifestyle programs: a discrete choice experiment. BMC Public Health [Internet]. 2013;13(1):1099.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Mattei J, Alfonso C. Strategies for healthy eating promotion and behavioral change perceived as effective by nutrition professionals: a mixed-methods study. Front Nutr. 2020. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnut.2020.00114.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Rankin A, Kuznesof S, Frewer LJ, Orr K, Davison J, De Almeida MDV, Stewart-Knox B. Public perceptions of personalised nutrition through the lens of Social Cognitive Theory. J Health Psychol. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1177/1359105315624750.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Feng-Gu E, Everett J, Brown RCH, Maslen H, Oakley J, Savulescu J. Prospective intention-based lifestyle contracts: mHealth Technology and Responsibility in Healthcare. Heal Care Anal. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10728-020-00424-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Determann D, Lambooij MS, Gyrd-Hansen D, de Bekker-Grob EW, Steyerberg EW, Heldoorn M, Bjørnskov Pedersen L, Ardine de Wit G. Personal health records in the Netherlands: potential user preferences quantified by a discrete choice experiment. J Am Med Informatics Assoc. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1093/jamia/ocw158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Foltz JL, Harris DM, Blanck HM. Support among U.S. adults for local and state policies to increase fruit and vegetable access. Am J Prev Med. 2012. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2012.05.017.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Stewart-Knox B, Rankin A, Kuznesof S, Poínhos R, Vaz De Almeida MD, Fischer A, Frewer LJ. Promoting healthy dietary behaviour through personalised nutrition: technology push or technology pull? In: Proceedings of the Nutrition Society. Cambridge University Press; 2015. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0029665114001529.

  37. Rankin A, Bunting BP, Poínhos R, Van Der Lans IA, Fischer ARH, Kuznesof S, Frewer JN, Stewart-Knox BJ. Food choice motives, attitude towards and intention to adopt personalised nutrition. Public Health Nutr. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980018001234.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Molema C, Veldwijk J, Wendel-Vos W, De Wit A, van de Goor I, Schuit J. Chronically ill patients’ preferences for a financial incentive in a lifestyle intervention. Results of a discrete choice experiment. PLoS One. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0219112.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Bridges JFP, Hauber AB, Marshall D, Lloyd A, Prosser LA, Regier DA, et al. Conjoint analysis applications in health—a checklist: a report of the ISPOR Good Research Practices for Conjoint Analysis Task Force. Value Heal. 2011. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2010.11.013.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Street DJ, Burgess L, Louviere JJ. Quick and easy choice sets: constructing optimal and nearly optimal stated choice experiments. Int J Res Mark. 2005;22(4):459–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Pittler MH, Ernst E. Dietary supplements for body-weight reduction: A systematic review. Vol. 79, American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. American Society for Nutrition; 2004.

  42. Hole AR. DCREATE: Stata module to create efficient designs for discrete choice experiments. In: RePEc; 2017. https://ideas.repec.org/c/boc/bocode/s458059.html. Accessed 5 Jan 2020.

  43. Zwerina K, Huber J, Kuhfeld WF. A general method for constructing efficient choice designs. Durham: NC Fuqua Sch Business, Duke Univ; 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Johnson FR, Lancsar E, Marshall D, Kilambi V, Mühlbacher A, Regier DA, et al. Constructing experimental designs for discrete-choice experiments: report of the ISPOR conjoint analysis experimental design good research practices task force. Value Heal. 2013;16(1):3–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Janssen EM, Hauber AB, Bridges JFP. Conducting a discrete-choice experiment study following recommendations for good research practices: an application for eliciting patient preferences for diabetes treatments. Value Heal. 2018;21(1):59–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Johnson R, Orme B. Getting the most from CBC [Internet]. 2003. www.sawtoothsoftware.com. Accessed 2021 Feb 15.

  47. Lancsar E, Louviere J. Conducting discrete choice experiments to inform healthcare decision making. Pharmacoeconomics [Internet]. 2008;26(8):661–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Domencich TA, McFadden D. Urban travel demand—a behavioral analysis. New York: American Elsevier; 1975.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Hauber AB, González JM, Groothuis-Oudshoorn CGM, Prior T, Marshall DA, Cunningham C, IJzerman MJ, Bridges JPF. Statistical methods for the analysis of discrete choice experiments: a report of the ISPOR conjoint analysis good research practices task force. Value Heal. 2016. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2016.04.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Maddala GS. Limited-dependent and qualitative variables in econometrics. 1st ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1983.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  51. Train KE. Discrete choice methods with simulation, second edition. Vol. 9780521766555, discrete choice methods with simulation, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press; 2009. pp. 1–388.

  52. Yoo H Il. lclogit2: An enhanced module to estimate latent class conditional logit models. 2019. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3484429.

  53. McFadden D. Quantitative methods for analyzing travel behaviour of individuals: some recent developments. Berkeley, CA: Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California; 1977.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Kokolakis S. Privacy attitudes and privacy behaviour: a review of current research on the privacy paradox phenomenon. Comput Secur. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cose.2015.07.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Chang J, Savage SJ, Waldman DM. Estimating willingness to pay for online health services with discrete-choice experiments. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2017;15(4):491–500.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We wish to thank the entire Stance4Health team for their support, Professors Joan Gil and Miguel A. Negrin for their helpful suggestions at the EEconAES Workshop and AESEC session, and Daniel Hinojosa for providing a professional nutritionist's point of view.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Applied Economics, University of Granada, Granada, Spain

    Daniel Pérez-Troncoso & David M. Epstein

  2. Department of Marketing and Market Research, University of Granada, Granada, Spain

    José A. Castañeda-García

Authors
  1. Daniel Pérez-Troncoso
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. David M. Epstein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. José A. Castañeda-García
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Daniel Pérez-Troncoso.

Ethics declarations

Funding

This project has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under grant agreement No. 816303 (STANCE4HEALTH). DE and DPT have also received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement 733203 (PAPA-ARTIS).

Conflict of Interest

The authors have no financial or non-financial interests to disclose.

Ethics Approval

Approved by the Human Research Ethics Committee of the University of Granada.

Consent to Participate

By completing the survey, participants consented to participate in this research.

Consent for Publication

The authors affirm that participants have consented to the use of their responses in the research and in the publication of the research. The authors confirm that they consent to the publication of their article.

Code and Data

https://doi.org/10.17632/kh2btj3btj.1.

Author Contributions

Survey design (DPT, DE, JCG), data analysis (DPT, DE, JCG), study design (DPT, DE), introduction and conclusions (DE, DPT).

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 921 kb)

Supplementary file2 (DOCX 189 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pérez-Troncoso, D., Epstein, D.M. & Castañeda-García, J.A. Consumers' Preferences and Willingness to Pay for Personalised Nutrition. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 19, 757–767 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40258-021-00647-3

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40258-021-00647-3

Search

Navigation