IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/eejocm/v44y2022ics1755534522000252.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Matching and weighting in stated preferences for health care

Author

Listed:
  • Vass, Caroline M.
  • Boeri, Marco
  • Poulos, Christine
  • Turner, Alex J.

Abstract

There is an increasing interest in the use of stated preference methods to understand individuals' preferences for health and healthcare. There is also a growing interest in understanding heterogeneity in individuals' preferences. Consequently, stated preference studies frequently consider models that capture either or both observed and unobserved preference heterogeneity. A popular preliminary investigation into heterogeneity involves split-sample analysis to compare subgroups' preferences e.g., comparing patients with clinicians, or older patients with younger. In fixed-effects models, the constant variables (the individuals’ characteristics) remain stable across choice sets and therefore only enter the choice model when interacted with various attributes and/or levels. However, subgroups of respondents may differ on multiple variables that may not easily be implemented with interaction terms because of complexity and a lack of power thus only one, or a few, variables are typically taken into account in each subgroup model. This paper presents an overview of methods for matching and balancing samples to weight individuals with different characteristics in subgroup analysis and an example of how unweighted comparisons may produce erroneous conclusions regarding the degree of heterogeneity in preferences. We illustrate the issue with synthetic and empirical datasets to explore methods for matching subgroups before and within simple choice models. Our results show that entropy balancing and propensity score matching could be more appropriate than analyses using unmatched preference data when heterogeneity is driven by multiple factors. The paper concludes with a discussion of when matching and weighting may and may not be useful in healthcare decision-making.

Suggested Citation

  • Vass, Caroline M. & Boeri, Marco & Poulos, Christine & Turner, Alex J., 2022. "Matching and weighting in stated preferences for health care," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 44(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:eejocm:v:44:y:2022:i:c:s1755534522000252
    DOI: 10.1016/j.jocm.2022.100367
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1755534522000252
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.jocm.2022.100367?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. Hainmueller, Jens, 2012. "Entropy Balancing for Causal Effects: A Multivariate Reweighting Method to Produce Balanced Samples in Observational Studies," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 20(1), pages 25-46, January.
    2. Mehdi Najafzadeh & Sebastian Schneeweiss & Niteesh K. Choudhry & Jerry Avorn & Joshua J. Gagne, 2019. "General Population vs. Patient Preferences in Anticoagulant Therapy: A Discrete Choice Experiment," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 12(2), pages 235-246, April.
    3. Rajeev H. Dehejia & Sadek Wahba, 2002. "Propensity Score-Matching Methods For Nonexperimental Causal Studies," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 84(1), pages 151-161, February.
    4. Vikas Soekhai & Esther W. Bekker-Grob & Alan R. Ellis & Caroline M. Vass, 2019. "Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: Past, Present and Future," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 37(2), pages 201-226, February.
    5. Liebe, Ulf & Glenk, Klaus & Oehlmann, Malte & Meyerhoff, Jürgen, 2015. "Does the use of mobile devices (tablets and smartphones) affect survey quality and choice behaviour in web surveys?," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 14(C), pages 17-31.
    6. Heather L. Benz & Ting-Hsuan (Joyce) Lee & Jui-Hua Tsai & John F. P. Bridges & Sara Eggers & Megan Moncur & Fadia T. Shaya & Ira Shoulson & Erica S. Spatz & Leslie Wilson & Anindita Saha, 2019. "Advancing the Use of Patient Preference Information as Scientific Evidence in Medical Product Evaluation: A Summary Report of the Patient Preference Workshop," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 12(6), pages 553-557, December.
    7. Caroline M. Vass & Katherine Payne, 2017. "Using Discrete Choice Experiments to Inform the Benefit-Risk Assessment of Medicines: Are We Ready Yet?," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 35(9), pages 859-866, September.
    8. Brathwaite, Timothy & Walker, Joan L., 2018. "Causal inference in travel demand modeling (and the lack thereof)," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 26(C), pages 1-18.
    9. Kelleher, Dan & Barry, Luke & Hobbins, Anna & O'Neill, Stephen & Doherty, Edel & O'Neill, Ciaran, 2020. "Examining the transnational health preferences of a group of Eastern European migrants relative to a European host population using the EQ-5D-5L," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 246(C).
    10. Iacus, Stefano M. & King, Gary & Porro, Giuseppe, 2012. "Causal Inference without Balance Checking: Coarsened Exact Matching," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 20(1), pages 1-24, January.
    11. Bennett Levitan & A. Brett Hauber & Marina G. Damiano & Ross Jaffe & Stephanie Christopher, 2017. "The Ball is in Your Court: Agenda for Research to Advance the Science of Patient Preferences in the Regulatory Review of Medical Devices in the United States," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 10(5), pages 531-536, October.
    12. Caroline M. Vass & Marco Boeri, 2021. "Mobilising the Next Generation of Stated-Preference Studies: the Association of Access Device with Choice Behaviour and Data Quality," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 14(1), pages 55-63, January.
    13. Stanislav Kolenikov, 2014. "Calibrating survey data using iterative proportional fitting (raking)," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 14(1), pages 22-59, March.
    14. Caroline Vass & Dan Rigby & Katherine Payne, 2019. "“I Was Trying to Do the Maths”: Exploring the Impact of Risk Communication in Discrete Choice Experiments," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 12(1), pages 113-123, February.
    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. David J. Mott & Laura Ternent & Luke Vale, 2023. "Do preferences differ based on respondent experience of a health issue and its treatment? A case study using a public health intervention," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 24(3), pages 413-423, April.
    2. Berenger Djoumessi Tiague, 2023. "Floods, Agricultural Production, and Household Welfare: Evidence from Tanzania," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 85(2), pages 341-384, June.
    3. Yacouba Coulibaly, 2023. "Can Resource-backed Loans Mitigate Climate Change ?," Working Papers hal-04072352, HAL.
    4. François Fall & Akim Almouksit, 2016. "The impact of formal financing on small informal enterprises in Comoros," Working Papers hal-01566389, HAL.
    5. Kube, Roland & von Graevenitz, Kathrine & Löschel, Andreas & Massier, Philipp, 2019. "Do voluntary environmental programs reduce emissions? EMAS in the German manufacturing sector," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 84(S1).
    6. Pedro H. C. Sant'Anna & Xiaojun Song & Qi Xu, 2022. "Covariate distribution balance via propensity scores," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 37(6), pages 1093-1120, September.
    7. Corsini, Alberto & Pezzoni, Michele, 2023. "Does grant funding foster research impact? Evidence from France," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 17(4).
    8. Dugstad, Anders & Grimsrud, Kristine & Kipperberg, Gorm & Lindhjem, Henrik & Navrud, Ståle, 2020. "Acceptance of wind power development and exposure – Not-in-anybody's-backyard," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 147(C).
    9. Michael C. Knaus, 2021. "A double machine learning approach to estimate the effects of musical practice on student’s skills," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 184(1), pages 282-300, January.
    10. Müller, Tobias & Schmid, Christian & Gerfin, Michael, 2023. "Rents for Pills: Financial incentives and physician behavior," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(C).
    11. Dolls, Mathias & Krolage, Carla, 2019. "The Effects of Early Retirement Incentives on Retirement Decisions," VfS Annual Conference 2019 (Leipzig): 30 Years after the Fall of the Berlin Wall - Democracy and Market Economy 203486, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    12. Macchioni Giaquinto, Annarita & Jones, Andrew M. & Rice, Nigel & Zantomio, Francesca, 2021. "Labour supply and informal care responses to health shocks within couples: evidence from the UKHLS," GLO Discussion Paper Series 806, Global Labor Organization (GLO).
    13. Xitong Li & Hongwei Zhu & Luo Zuo, 2021. "Reporting Technologies and Textual Readability: Evidence from the XBRL Mandate," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 32(3), pages 1025-1042, September.
    14. Turati, Riccardo, 2024. "Network Abroad and Culture: Global Individual-Level Evidence," GLO Discussion Paper Series 1488, Global Labor Organization (GLO).
    15. David A. Steinberg & Yeling Tan, 2023. "Public responses to foreign protectionism: Evidence from the US-China trade war," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 18(1), pages 145-167, January.
    16. Alexander G. Nikolaev & Sheldon H. Jacobson & Wendy K. Tam Cho & Jason J. Sauppe & Edward C. Sewell, 2013. "Balance Optimization Subset Selection (BOSS): An Alternative Approach for Causal Inference with Observational Data," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 61(2), pages 398-412, April.
    17. Weber, Olaf & Ahmad, Adnan, 2014. "Empowerment Through Microfinance: The Relation Between Loan Cycle and Level of Empowerment," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 75-87.
    18. Aizawa, T.;, 2019. "Reviewing the Existing Evidence of the Conditional Cash Transfer in India through the Partial Identification Approach," Health, Econometrics and Data Group (HEDG) Working Papers 19/24, HEDG, c/o Department of Economics, University of York.
    19. Anders Dugstad & Kristine Grimsrud & Gorm Kipperberg & Henrik Lindhjem & Ståle Navrud, 2020. "Scope elasticity and economic significance in discrete choice experiments," Discussion Papers 942, Statistics Norway, Research Department.
    20. Heather Klemick & Ann Wolverton & Bryan Parthum & Kristin Epstein & Sandra Kutzing & Sarah Armstrong, 2024. "Factors Influencing Customer Participation in a Program to Replace Lead Pipes for Drinking Water," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 87(3), pages 791-832, March.

    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:44:y:2022:i:c:s1755534522000252. 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.