A Closer Look at Decision and Analyst Error by Including Nonlinearities in Discrete Choice Models: Implications on Willingness-to-Pay Estimates Derived from Discrete Choice Data in Healthcare
Rent the article at a discountRent now
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.Get Access
Most researchers in health economics cite random utility theory (RUT) when analysing discrete choice experiments (DCEs). Under RUT, the error term is associated with the analyst’s inability to properly capture the true choice processes of the respondent as well as the inconsistency or mistakes arising from the respondent themselves. Under such assumptions, it stands to reason that analysts should explore more complex nonlinear indirect utility functions, than currently used in healthcare, to strive for better estimates of preferences in healthcare.
To test whether complex indirect utility functions decrease error variance for models that either implicitly (i.e. the multinomial logit (MNL) model) or explicitly (i.e. entropy multinomial logit (EMNL) model) account for error variance in health(care)-related DCEs; and to determine the impact of complex indirect utility functions on willingness-to-pay (WTP) measures.
Using data from DCEs aimed at healthcare-related decisions, we empirically compared (1) complex and simple indirect utility specifications in terms of goodness of fit, (2) their impact on WTP measures, including confidence intervals (CIs) based on the Delta method, the Krinsky and Robb-procedure, and Bootstrapping, and (3) MNL and EMNL model results.
Complex indirect utility functions had a better model fit than simple specifications (p < 0.05). WTP estimates were quite similar across alternative specifications. The Delta method produced the most narrow CIs. The EMNL model showed that respondents apply simplifying strategies when answering DCE questions.
Complex indirect utility functions reduce error arisen from researchers, which can have important implications for measures in healthcare such as the WTP, whereas EMNL provides insights into the behaviour of respondents when answering DCEs. Understanding how respondents answer DCE questions may allow researchers to construct DCEs that minimise scale differences, so that the decision error made across respondents is more homogeneous and therefore taken out as additional noise in the data. Hence, better estimates of preferences in healthcare can be provided.
- Louviere, JJ, Lancsar, E (2009) Choice experiments in health: the good, the bad, the ugly and toward a brighter future. Health Econ Policy Law 4: pp. 527-546 CrossRef
- Witt, J, Scott, A, Osborne, RH (2009) Designing choice experiments with many attributes: an application to setting priorities for orthopaedic waiting lists. Health Econ 18: pp. 681-696 CrossRef
- Manski, C (1977) The structure of random utility models. Theory Decis 8: pp. 229-254 CrossRef
- McFadden, D Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. In: Zarembka, P eds. (1974) Frontiers in econometrics. Academic Press, New York, pp. 105-142
- Fiebig, DG, Knox, S, Viney, R, Haas, M, Street, DJ (2011) Preferences for new and existing contraceptive products. Health Econ 20: pp. 35-52 CrossRef
- Keane M. The generalized logit model: preliminary ideas on a research program Motorola-CenSoC meeting, Hong Kong; 2006.
- Kuhn HW, Tucker AW. Nonlinear programming. In: Neyman J, editor. Proceedings of the Second Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and Probability. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press; 1950. p. 481–492.
- Johnson, FR, Mohamed, AF, Ozdemir, S, Marshall, DA, Phillips, KA (2011) How does cost matter in health-care discrete-choice experiments?. Health Econ 20: pp. 323-330 CrossRef
- Kolstad, JR (2011) How to make rural jobs more attractive to health workers: findings from a discrete choice experiment in Tanzania. Health Econ 20: pp. 196-211 CrossRef
- Mark, TL, Swait, J (2004) Using stated preference and revealed preference modeling to evaluate prescribing decisions. Health Econ 13: pp. 563-573 CrossRef
- Hole, AR (2007) A comparison of approaches to estimating confidence intervals for willingness to pay measures. Health Econ 16: pp. 827-840 CrossRef
- Swait, J, Adamowicz, W (2001) Choice environment, market complexity, and consumer behavior: a theoretical and empirical approach for incorporating decision complexity into models of consumer choice. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 86: pp. 141-167 CrossRef
- Fiebig, DG, Keane, MP, Louviere, JJ, Wasi, N (2010) The generalized multinomial logit model: accounting for scale and coefficient heterogeneity. Mark Sci 29: pp. 393-421 CrossRef
- Louviere, JJ, Carson, RT, Ainslie, A, Cameron, TA, DeShazo, JR, Hensher, D (2002) Dissecting the random component of utility. Mark Lett 13: pp. 177-193 CrossRef
- Louviere JJ, Eagle T. Confound it! That pesky little scale constant messes up our convenient assumptions. In: Proceedings of 2006 sawtooth software conference. Sequem: Sawtooth Software; 2006. p. 211–28.
- Louviere, JJ, Street, D, Burgess, L, Wasi, N, Islam, T, Marley, AAJ (2008) Modeling the choices of individuals decision makers by combining efficient choice experiment designs with extra preference information. J Choice Model 1: pp. 128-163 CrossRef
- Meyer, RJ, Louviere, JJ (2007) Formal choice models of informal choices: what choice modelling research can (and can’t) learn from behavioral theory. Rev Mark Res 4: pp. 3-32 CrossRef
- Knox, SA, Viney, RC, Gu, Y, Hole, AR, Fiebig, DG, Street, DJ (2013) The effect of adverse information and positive promotion on women’s preferences for prescribed contraceptive products. Soc Sci Med 83: pp. 70-80 CrossRef
- Ryan, M, Gerard, K (2003) Using discrete choice experiments to value health care programmes: current practice and future research reflections. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 2: pp. 55-64
- Bekker-Grob, EW, Ryan, M, Gerard, K (2012) Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature. Health Econ 21: pp. 145-172 CrossRef
- Hall, J, Kenny, P, King, M, Louviere, J, Viney, R, Yeoh, A (2002) Using stated preference discrete choice modelling to evaluate the introduction of varicella vaccination. Health Econ 11: pp. 457-465 CrossRef
- Maddala, T, Phillips, KA, Reed Johnson, F (2003) An experiment on simplifying conjoint analysis designs for measuring preferences. Health Econ 12: pp. 1035-1047 CrossRef
- Ozdemir, S, Mohamed, AF, Johnson, FR, Hauber, AB (2010) Who pays attention in stated-choice surveys?. Health Econ 19: pp. 111-118
- Ryan, M, Watson, V (2009) Comparing welfare estimates from payment card contingent valuation and discrete choice experiments. Health Econ 18: pp. 389-401 CrossRef
- Telser, H, Zweifel, P (2002) Measuring willingness-to-pay for risk reduction: an application of conjoint analysis. Health Econ 11: pp. 129-139 CrossRef
- Reed Johnson, F, Lancsar, E, Marshall, D, Kilambi, V, Muhlbacher, A, Regier, DA (2013) Constructing experimental designs for discrete-choice experiments: report of the ISPOR Conjoint Analysis Experimental Design Good Research Practices Task Force. Value Health 16: pp. 3-13 CrossRef
- Viney, R, Lancsar, E, Louviere, J (2002) Discrete choice experiments to measure consumer preferences for health and healthcare. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 2: pp. 319-326 CrossRef
- Lancsar, E, Savage, E (2004) Deriving welfare measures from discrete choice experiments: inconsistency between current methods and random utility and welfare theory. Health Econ 13: pp. 901-907 CrossRef
- Dellaert, BGC, Brazell, JD, Louviere, JJ (1999) The effect of attribute variation on consumer choice consistency. Mark Lett 10: pp. 139-147 CrossRef
- Keller, KL, Staelin, R (1987) Effects of quality and quantity of information on decision effectiveness. J Consumer Res 14: pp. 200-213 CrossRef
- Bekker-Grob, EW, Essink-Bot, ML, Meerding, WJ, Koes, BW, Steyerberg, EW (2009) Preferences of GPs and patients for preventive osteoporosis drug treatment: a discrete-choice experiment. Pharmacoeconomics 27: pp. 211-219 CrossRef
- Bekker-Grob, EW, Essink-Bot, ML, Meerding, WJ, Pols, HA, Koes, BW, Steyerberg, EW (2008) Patients’ preferences for osteoporosis drug treatment: a discrete choice experiment. Osteoporos Int 19: pp. 1029-1037 CrossRef
- Bekker-Grob, EW, Rose, JM, Donkers, B, Essink-Bot, ML, Bangma, CH, Steyerberg, EW (2013) Men’s preferences for prostate cancer screening: a discrete choice experiment. Br J Cancer 108: pp. 533-541 CrossRef
- Daly, A, Hess, S, Jong, G (2012) Calculating errors for measures derived from choice modelling estimates. Transp Res Part B 46: pp. 333-341 CrossRef
- Hess, S, Rose, JM (2012) Can scale and coefficient heterogeneity be separated in random coefficients models?. Transportation 39: pp. 1225-1239 CrossRef
- Flynn, TN, Louviere, JJ, Peters, TJ, Coast, J (2010) Using discrete choice experiments to understand preferences for quality of life: variance-scale heterogeneity matters. Soc Sci Med 70: pp. 1957-1965 CrossRef
- A Closer Look at Decision and Analyst Error by Including Nonlinearities in Discrete Choice Models: Implications on Willingness-to-Pay Estimates Derived from Discrete Choice Data in Healthcare
Volume 31, Issue 12 , pp 1169-1183
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Springer International Publishing
- Additional Links
- Industry Sectors
- Author Affiliations
- 1. Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Centre Rotterdam, PO Box 2040, 3000 CA, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
- 2. The University of Sydney Business School, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia