IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/eejocm/v40y2021ics1755534521000385.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

What factors influence HIV testing? Modeling preference heterogeneity using latent classes and class-independent random effects

Author

Listed:
  • Ostermann, Jan
  • Flaherty, Brian P.
  • Brown, Derek S.
  • Njau, Bernard
  • Hobbie, Amy M.
  • Mtuy, Tara B.
  • Masnick, Max
  • Mühlbacher, Axel C.
  • Thielman, Nathan M.

Abstract

Efforts to eliminate the HIV epidemic will require increased HIV testing rates among high-risk populations. To inform the design of HIV testing interventions, a discrete choice experiment (DCE) with six policy-relevant attributes of HIV testing options elicited the testing preferences of 300 female barworkers and 440 male Kilimanjaro mountain porters in northern Tanzania. Surveys were administered between September 2017 and July 2018. Participants were asked to complete 12 choice tasks, each involving first- and second-best choices from 3 testing options. DCE responses were analyzed using a random effects latent class logit (RELCL) model, in which the latent classes summarize common participant preference profiles, and the random effects capture additional individual-level preference heterogeneity with respect to three attribute domains: (a) privacy and confidentiality (testing venue, pre-test counseling, partner notification); (b) invasiveness and perceived accuracy (method for obtaining the sample for the HIV test); and (c) accessibility and value (testing availability, additional services provided). The Bayesian Information Criterion indicated the best model fit for a model with 8 preference classes, with class sizes ranging from 6% to 19% of participants. Substantial preference heterogeneity was observed, both between and within latent classes, with 12 of 16 attribute levels having positive and negative coefficients across classes, and all three random effects contributing significantly to participants’ choices. The findings may help identify combinations of testing options that match the distribution of HIV testing preferences among high-risk populations; the methods may be used to systematically design heterogeneity-focused interventions using stated preference methods.

Suggested Citation

  • Ostermann, Jan & Flaherty, Brian P. & Brown, Derek S. & Njau, Bernard & Hobbie, Amy M. & Mtuy, Tara B. & Masnick, Max & Mühlbacher, Axel C. & Thielman, Nathan M., 2021. "What factors influence HIV testing? Modeling preference heterogeneity using latent classes and class-independent random effects," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:eejocm:v:40:y:2021:i:c:s1755534521000385
    DOI: 10.1016/j.jocm.2021.100305
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1755534521000385
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.jocm.2021.100305?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Zhou, Mo & Bridges, John F.P., 2019. "Explore preference heterogeneity for treatment among people with Type 2 diabetes: A comparison of random-parameters and latent-class estimation techniques," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 30(C), pages 38-49.
    2. William H. Greene & David A. Hensher, 2013. "Revealing additional dimensions of preference heterogeneity in a latent class mixed multinomial logit model," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 45(14), pages 1897-1902, May.
    3. Matthew Quaife & Robyn Eakle & Maria A. Cabrera Escobar & Peter Vickerman & Maggie Kilbourne-Brook & Mercy Mvundura & Sinead Delany-Moretlwe & Fern Terris-Prestholt, 2018. "Divergent Preferences for HIV Prevention: A Discrete Choice Experiment for Multipurpose HIV Prevention Products in South Africa," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 38(1), pages 120-133, January.
    4. Bakk, Zsuzsa & Oberski, Daniel L. & Vermunt, Jeroen K., 2014. "Relating Latent Class Assignments to External Variables: Standard Errors for Correct Inference," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 22(4), pages 520-540.
    5. Johnson, F. Reed & Ozdemir, Semra & Phillips, Kathryn A., 2010. "Effects of simplifying choice tasks on estimates of taste heterogeneity in stated-choice surveys," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 70(2), pages 183-190, January.
    6. Matthew Quaife & Fern Terris-Prestholt & Gian Luca Di Tanna & Peter Vickerman, 2018. "How well do discrete choice experiments predict health choices? A systematic review and meta-analysis of external validity," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 19(8), pages 1053-1066, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Chavez, Daniel E. & Palma, Marco A. & Nayga, Rodolfo M. & Mjelde, James W., 2020. "Product availability in discrete choice experiments with private goods," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 36(C).
    2. Terris-Prestholt, Fern & Mulatu, Abay & Quaife, Matthew & Gafos, Mitzy & Medley, Graham F. & MacPhail, Catherine & Hanson, Kara, 2021. "Using choice experiments to improve equity in access to socially marketed HIV prevention products," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    3. Arora, Nikita & dit Sourd, Romain Crastes & Quaife, Matthew & Vassall, Anna & Ferrari, Giulia & Alangea, Deda Ogum & Tawiah, Theresa & Dwommoh Prah, Rebecca Kyerewaa & Jewkes, Rachel & Hanson, Kara & , 2023. "The stated preferences of community-based volunteers for roles in the prevention of violence against women and girls in Ghana: A discrete choice analysis," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 324(C).
    4. Christine Michaels-Igbokwe & Gillian R. Currie & Bryanne L. Kennedy & Karen V. MacDonald & Deborah A. Marshall, 2021. "Methods for Conducting Stated Preference Research with Children and Adolescents in Health: A Scoping Review of the Application of Discrete Choice Experiments," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 14(6), pages 741-758, November.
    5. Jia, Wenjian & Chen, T. Donna, 2023. "Investigating heterogeneous preferences for plug-in electric vehicles: Policy implications from different choice models," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).
    6. Magda Aguiar & Mark Harrison & Sarah Munro & Tiasha Burch & K. Julia Kaal & Marie Hudson & Nick Bansback & Tracey-Lea Laba, 2021. "Designing Discrete Choice Experiments Using a Patient-Oriented Approach," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 14(4), pages 389-397, July.
    7. Giacomo Pallante & Adam Drucker, 2014. "Niche Markets for Agrobiodiversity Conservation: Preference and Scale Heterogeneity Effects on Nepalese Consumers’ WTP for Finger Millet Products," SEEDS Working Papers 1414, SEEDS, Sustainability Environmental Economics and Dynamics Studies, revised May 2014.
    8. Roberto Aringhieri & Patrick Hirsch & Marion S. Rauner & Melanie Reuter-Oppermanns & Margit Sommersguter-Reichmann, 2022. "Central European journal of operations research (CJOR) “operations research applied to health services (ORAHS) in Europe: general trends and ORAHS 2020 conference in Vienna, Austria”," Central European Journal of Operations Research, Springer;Slovak Society for Operations Research;Hungarian Operational Research Society;Czech Society for Operations Research;Österr. Gesellschaft für Operations Research (ÖGOR);Slovenian Society Informatika - Section for Operational Research;Croatian Operational Research Society, vol. 30(1), pages 1-18, March.
    9. Milad Haghani & Michiel C. J. Bliemer & John M. Rose & Harmen Oppewal & Emily Lancsar, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part I. Integrative synthesis of empirical evidence and conceptualisation of external validity," Papers 2102.02940, arXiv.org.
    10. Nael Alsaleh & Bilal Farooq & Yixue Zhang & Steven Farber, 2021. "On-Demand Transit User Preference Analysis using Hybrid Choice Models," Papers 2102.08256, arXiv.org, revised Aug 2023.
    11. Krueger, Rico & Rashidi, Taha H. & Vij, Akshay, 2020. "A Dirichlet process mixture model of discrete choice: Comparisons and a case study on preferences for shared automated vehicles," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 36(C).
    12. Gil, J.M. & Diaz-Montenegro, J. & Varela, E., 2018. "A Bias-Adjusted Three-Step approach for analysing the livelihood strategies and the asset mix of cacao producers in Ecuador," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277215, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    13. Lekkas, Peter & Howard, Natasha J & Stankov, Ivana & daniel, mark & Paquet, Catherine, 2019. "A Longitudinal Typology of Neighbourhood-level Social Fragmentation: A Finite Mixture Model Approach," SocArXiv 56x9c, Center for Open Science.
    14. Zhu, Yajing & Steele, Fiona & Moustaki, Irini, 2017. "A general 3-step maximum likelihood approach to estimate the effects of multiple latent categorical variables on a distal outcome," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 81850, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    15. Martínez-Pardo, Ana & Orro, Alfonso & Garcia-Alonso, Lorena, 2020. "Analysis of port choice: A methodological proposal adjusted with public data," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 178-193.
    16. Gregory Merlo & Mieke Driel & Lisa Hall, 2020. "Systematic review and validity assessment of methods used in discrete choice experiments of primary healthcare professionals," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 10(1), pages 1-9, December.
    17. Anthony Scott & Peter Sivey, 2022. "Motivation and competition in health care," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(8), pages 1695-1712, August.
    18. Georges Sfeir & Filipe Rodrigues & Maya Abou-Zeid, 2021. "Gaussian Process Latent Class Choice Models," Papers 2101.12252, arXiv.org.
    19. Hess, Stephane & Palma, David, 2019. "Apollo: A flexible, powerful and customisable freeware package for choice model estimation and application," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 32(C), pages 1-1.
    20. David Hensher & Andrew Collins & William Greene, 2013. "Accounting for attribute non-attendance and common-metric aggregation in a probabilistic decision process mixed multinomial logit model: a warning on potential confounding," Transportation, Springer, vol. 40(5), pages 1003-1020, September.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:eejocm:v:40:y:2021:i:c:s1755534521000385. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.journals.elsevier.com/journal-of-choice-modelling .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.