Advertisement

PharmacoEconomics

, Volume 31, Issue 7, pp 623–634 | Cite as

Random Regret-Based Discrete-Choice Modelling: An Application to Healthcare

  • Esther W. de Bekker-Grob
  • Caspar G. Chorus
Original Research Article

Abstract

Background

A new modelling approach for analysing data from discrete-choice experiments (DCEs) has been recently developed in transport economics based on the notion of regret minimization-driven choice behaviour. This so-called Random Regret Minimization (RRM) approach forms an alternative to the dominant Random Utility Maximization (RUM) approach. The RRM approach is able to model semi-compensatory choice behaviour and compromise effects, while being as parsimonious and formally tractable as the RUM approach.

Objectives

Our objectives were to introduce the RRM modelling approach to healthcare-related decisions, and to investigate its usefulness in this domain.

Methods

Using data from DCEs aimed at determining valuations of attributes of osteoporosis drug treatments and human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccinations, we empirically compared RRM models, RUM models and Hybrid RUM–RRM models in terms of goodness of fit, parameter ratios and predicted choice probabilities.

Results

In terms of model fit, the RRM model did not outperform the RUM model significantly in the case of the osteoporosis DCE data (p = 0.21), whereas in the case of the HPV DCE data, the Hybrid RUM–RRM model outperformed the RUM model (p < 0.05). Differences in predicted choice probabilities between RUM models and (Hybrid RUM-) RRM models were small. Derived parameter ratios did not differ significantly between model types, but trade-offs between attributes implied by the two models can vary substantially.

Conclusion

Differences in model fit between RUM, RRM and Hybrid RUM–RRM were found to be small. Although our study did not show significant differences in parameter ratios, the RRM and Hybrid RUM–RRM models did feature considerable differences in terms of the trade-offs implied by these ratios. In combination, our results suggest that RRM and Hybrid RUM–RRM modelling approach hold the potential of offering new and policy-relevant insights for health researchers and policy makers.

Keywords

Choice Probability Parameter Ratio Compromise Effect Random Utility Maximization Compromise Alternative 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the respondents for filling in the DCE questionnaires; Marie-Louise Essink-Bot and Ewout Steyerberg for their support in conducting the osteoporosis drug treatment DCE study; and Ida Korfage and Robine Hofman for the data collection for the HPV vaccination DCE study. Grant support was from the Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC – University Medical Centre Rotterdam, and The Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (The Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research [NWO]; Talent Scheme Veni Grant No. 451-10-001). The views expressed by the authors in this paper are their own and not those of their funders.

Author Contributions

E.W. de Bekker-Grob designed and conducted the DCE studies, and drafted the manuscript. C.G. Chorus conceived the idea for the study, performed the analyses and contributed to the writing of the manuscript. Both authors have full access to all of the data in the study and can take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Supplementary material

40273_2013_59_MOESM1_ESM.doc (853 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOC 853 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Ryan M, Gerards K, Amaya-Amaya M, editors. Using discrete choice experiments to value health and health care. Dordrecht: Springer; 2008.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    de Bekker-Grob EW, Ryan M, Gerard K. Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature. Health Econ. 2012;21(2):145–72.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mangham LJ, Hanson K, McPake B. How to do (or not to do) … Designing a discrete choice experiment for application in a low-income country. Health Policy Plan. 2009;24(2):151–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Louviere J, Hensher DA, Swait JD. Stated choice methods: analysis and application. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hensher DA, Rose JM, Greene WH. Applied choice analysis: a primer. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Louviere JJ, Lancsar E. Choice experiments in health: the good, the bad, the ugly and toward a brighter future. Health Econ Policy Law. 2009;4(Pt 4):527–46.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lancsar E, Louviere J. Conducting discrete choice experiments to inform healthcare decision making: a user’s guide. Pharmacoeconomics. 2008;26(8):661–77.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ryan M, Gerard K. Using discrete choice experiments to value health care programmes: current practice and future research reflections. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2003;2(1):55–64.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    McFadden D. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. In: Zarembka P, editor. Frontiers in econometrics. New York: Academic Press; 1974. pp. 105–42.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Arentze TA, Timmermans HJP. Parametric action trees: incorporating continuous attribute variables into rule-based models of discrete choice. Transport Res B. 2007;41(7):772–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kivetz R, Netzer O, Srinivasan V. Alternative models for capturing the compromise effects. J Mark Res. 2004;41:237–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Swait JD. A non-compensatory choice model incorporating attribute cutoffs. Transport Res B. 2001;35:903–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Zhang J, Timmermans HJP, Borgers A, Wang D. Modelling traveler choice behavior using the concepts of relative utility and relevant interest. Transport Res B. 2004;38(3):215–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Chorus CG. Random regret-based discrete choice modelling: a tutorial. Heidelberg: Springer; 2012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Chorus CG. A new model of random regret minimization. Eur J Transport Infrastruct Res. 2010;10(2):181–96.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Zeelenberg M, Pieters R. A theory of regret regulation 1.0. J Consumer Psychol. 2007;17(1):3–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bell DE. Regret in decision making under uncertainty. Oper Res. 1982;30(5):961–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Chorus CG, Molin EJE, van Wee GP, Arentze TA, Timmermans HJP. Responses to transit information among car-drivers: regret-based models and simulations. Transp Plan Technol. 2006;29(4):249–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Loomes G, Sugden R. A rationale for preference reversal. Am Econ Rev. 1983;73(3):428–32.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Simonson I. The influence of anticipating regret and responsibility on purchasing decisions. J Consumer Res. 1992;19(1):105–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Simonson I. Choice based on reasons: The case of attraction and compromise effects. J Consumer Res. 1989;19:158–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Muller H, Kroll EB, Vogt B. Do real payments really matter? A re-examination of the compromise effect in hypothetical and binding choice settings. Mark Lett. 2012;23(1):73–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Chorus CG, Rose JM, Hensher DA. Regret minimisation or utility maximisation: it depends on the attribute. Environ Plan B. 2013;40(1):159–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    de Bekker-Grob EW, Essink-Bot ML, Meerding WJ, Koes BW, Steyerberg EW. Preferences of GPs and patients for preventive osteoporosis drug treatment: a discrete-choice experiment. Pharmacoeconomics. 2009;27(3):211–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    de Bekker-Grob EW, Essink-Bot ML, Meerding WJ, Pols HA, Koes BW, Steyerberg EW. Patients’ preferences for osteoporosis drug treatment: a discrete choice experiment. Osteoporos Int. 2008;19(7):1029–37.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    de Bekker-Grob EW, Hofman R, Donkers B, van Ballegooijen M, Helmerhorst TJ, Raat H, et al. Girls’ preferences for HPV vaccination: a discrete choice experiment. Vaccine. 2010;28(41):6692–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Street D, Burgess L. Discrete choice experiments. 2007. http://maths.science.uts.edu.au/maths/wiki/SPExpts (Accessed 12 Jun 2012).
  28. 28.
    Bierlaire M. BIOGEME: a free package for the estimation of discrete choice models. In: Proceedings of the 3rd Swiss transportation research conference, Ascona; 2003.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Train KE. Discrete choice methods with simulations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ben-Akiva ME, Swait J. The Akaike likelihood ratio index. Transp Sci. 1986;20:133–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Daly A, Hess S, de Jong G. Calculating errors for measures derived from choice modeling estimates. Transp Res Part B. 2012;46:333–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Chorus CG, De Jong GC. Modeling experienced accessibility for utility-maximizers and regret-minimizers. J Transport Geogr. 2011;19:1155–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Public HealthErasmus MC, University Medical Centre RotterdamRotterdamThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Transport and Logistics GroupDelft University of TechnologyDelftThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations