IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v114y2014icp138-150.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Understanding the formation and influence of attitudes in patients' treatment choices for lower back pain: Testing the benefits of a hybrid choice model approach

Author

Listed:
  • Kløjgaard, Mirja Elisabeth
  • Hess, Stephane

Abstract

A growing number of studies across different fields are making use of a new class of choice models, labelled variably as hybrid model structures or integrated choice and latent variable models, and incorporating the role of attitudes in decision making. To date, this technique has not been used in health economics. The present paper looks at the formation of such attitudes and their role in patients' treatment choices in the context of low back pain. We use stated choice data collected from a sample of 561 patients with 348 respondents referred to a regional spine centre in Middelfart, Denmark in spring/summer 2012. We show how the hybrid model structure is able to make a link between attitudinal questions and treatment choices, and also explains variation of these attitudes across key socio-demographic groups. However, we also show how, in this case, only a small share of the overall heterogeneity is linked to the latent attitude construct. Despite their growing popularity, the key findings of the advanced model, despite a greater insight into the drivers of attitudes and small gains in efficiency, are no different from standard approaches which remain easier to apply.

Suggested Citation

  • Kløjgaard, Mirja Elisabeth & Hess, Stephane, 2014. "Understanding the formation and influence of attitudes in patients' treatment choices for lower back pain: Testing the benefits of a hybrid choice model approach," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 138-150.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:114:y:2014:i:c:p:138-150
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.05.058
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953614003591
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.05.058?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. Esther W. de Bekker‐Grob & Mandy Ryan & Karen Gerard, 2012. "Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(2), pages 145-172, February.
    2. Hole, Arne Risa, 2008. "Modelling heterogeneity in patients' preferences for the attributes of a general practitioner appointment," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(4), pages 1078-1094, July.
    3. Stephane Hess & Nesha Beharry-Borg, 2012. "Accounting for Latent Attitudes in Willingness-to-Pay Studies: The Case of Coastal Water Quality Improvements in Tobago," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 52(1), pages 109-131, May.
    4. Hess, Stephane & Train, Kenneth E. & Polak, John W., 2006. "On the use of a Modified Latin Hypercube Sampling (MLHS) method in the estimation of a Mixed Logit Model for vehicle choice," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 40(2), pages 147-163, February.
    5. Ben-Akiva, Moshe & McFadden, Daniel & Train, Kenneth & Börsch-Supan, Axel, 2002. "Hybrid Choice Models: Progress and Challenges," Sonderforschungsbereich 504 Publications 02-29, Sonderforschungsbereich 504, Universität Mannheim;Sonderforschungsbereich 504, University of Mannheim.
    6. Andrew Daly & Stephane Hess & Bhanu Patruni & Dimitris Potoglou & Charlene Rohr, 2012. "Using ordered attitudinal indicators in a latent variable choice model: a study of the impact of security on rail travel behaviour," Transportation, Springer, vol. 39(2), pages 267-297, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Vij, Akshay & Walker, Joan L., 2016. "How, when and why integrated choice and latent variable models are latently useful," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 192-217.
    2. Wiktor Budziński & Mikołaj Czajkowski, 2018. "Hybrid choice models vs. endogeneity of indicator variables: a Monte Carlo investigation," Working Papers 2018-21, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    3. Rose, J.M. & Borriello, A. & Pellegrini, A., 2023. "Formative versus reflective attitude measures: Extending the hybrid choice model," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 48(C).
    4. 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.
    5. Schmid, Basil & Becker, Felix & Axhausen, Kay W. & Widmer, Paul & Stein, Petra, 2023. "A simultaneous model of residential location, mobility tool ownership and mode choice using latent variables," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 178(C).
    6. Schmid, Basil & Axhausen, Kay W., 2019. "In-store or online shopping of search and experience goods: A hybrid choice approach," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 31(C), pages 156-180.
    7. Mariel, Petr & Meyerhoff, Jürgen & Hess, Stephane, 2015. "Heterogeneous preferences toward landscape externalities of wind turbines – combining choices and attitudes in a hybrid model," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 647-657.
    8. Wiktor Budziński & Mikołaj Czajkowski, 2022. "Endogeneity and Measurement Bias of the Indicator Variables in Hybrid Choice Models: A Monte Carlo Investigation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 83(3), pages 605-629, November.
    9. Joanna Mazur & Katarzyna Śledziewska & Damian Zieba, 2018. "Regulation of Geo-blocking: does it address the problem of low intraEU iTrade?," Working Papers 2018-20, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    10. Arora, Nikita & Crastes dit Sourd, Romain & Hanson, Kara & Woldesenbet, Dorka & Seifu, Abiy & Quaife, Matthew, 2022. "Linking health worker motivation with their stated job preferences: A hybrid choice analysis in Ethiopia," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 307(C).
    11. Ahi, Jülide Ceren & Aanesen, Margrethe & Kipperberg, Gorm, 2023. "Testing the sensitivity of stated environmental preferences to variations in choice architecture," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 205(C).

    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. Schmid, Basil & Axhausen, Kay W., 2019. "In-store or online shopping of search and experience goods: A hybrid choice approach," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 31(C), pages 156-180.
    2. Daina, Nicolò & Sivakumar, Aruna & Polak, John W., 2017. "Modelling electric vehicles use: a survey on the methods," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 68(P1), pages 447-460.
    3. Sandorf, Erlend Dancke & Persson, Lars & Broberg, Thomas, 2020. "Using an integrated choice and latent variable model to understand the impact of “professional” respondents in a stated preference survey," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(C).
    4. Jose J. Soto & Victor Cantillo & Julian Arellana, 2018. "Incentivizing alternative fuel vehicles: the influence of transport policies, attitudes and perceptions," Transportation, Springer, vol. 45(6), pages 1721-1753, November.
    5. Mariel, Petr & Meyerhoff, Jürgen & Hess, Stephane, 2015. "Heterogeneous preferences toward landscape externalities of wind turbines – combining choices and attitudes in a hybrid model," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 647-657.
    6. Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Vossler, Christian A. & Budziński, Wiktor & Wiśniewska, Aleksandra & Zawojska, Ewa, 2017. "Addressing empirical challenges related to the incentive compatibility of stated preferences methods," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 47-63.
    7. Gerben de Jong & Christiaan Behrens & Hester van Herk & Erik (E.T.) Verhoef, 2018. "Airfares with codeshares: (why) are consumers willing to pay more for products of foreign firms with a domestic partner?," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 18-077/VIII, Tinbergen Institute, revised 28 Feb 2021.
    8. Habtamu Tilahun Kassahun & Bo Jellesmark Thorsen & Joffre Swait & Jette Bredahl Jacobsen, 2020. "Social Cooperation in the Context of Integrated Private and Common Land Management," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 75(1), pages 105-136, January.
    9. Arora, Nikita & Crastes dit Sourd, Romain & Hanson, Kara & Woldesenbet, Dorka & Seifu, Abiy & Quaife, Matthew, 2022. "Linking health worker motivation with their stated job preferences: A hybrid choice analysis in Ethiopia," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 307(C).
    10. Kristine Pakalniete & Juris Aigars & Mikołaj Czajkowski & Solvita Strake & Ewa Zawojska & Nick Hanley, 2016. "Understanding the distribution of economic benefits from improving coastal and marine ecosystems," Working Papers 2016-26, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    11. Anna Bartczak & Wiktor Budziński & Bernadeta Gołębiowska, 2018. "Impact of beliefs about negative effects of wind turbines on preference heterogeneity regarding renewable energy development in Poland," Working Papers 2018-19, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    12. Grilli, Gianluca & Notaro, Sandra & Campbell, Danny, 2018. "Including Value Orientations in Choice Models to Estimate Benefits of Wildlife Management Policies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 70-81.
    13. Barrientos, Manuel & Lavin, Felipe Vasquez & Ponce Oliva, Roberto D., 2020. "Assessing the Incorporation of Latent Variables in the Estimation of the Value of a Statistical Life," EfD Discussion Paper 20-22, Environment for Development, University of Gothenburg.
    14. Bernadeta Gołębiowska & Anna Bartczak & Mikołaj Czajkowski, 2020. "Energy Demand Management and Social Norms," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(15), pages 1-20, July.
    15. Daziano, Ricardo A., 2015. "Inference on mode preferences, vehicle purchases, and the energy paradox using a Bayesian structural choice model," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 1-26.
    16. Malte Welling & Ewa Zawojska & Julian Sagebiel, 2022. "Information, Consequentiality and Credibility in Stated Preference Surveys: A Choice Experiment on Climate Adaptation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 82(1), pages 257-283, May.
    17. Pestana, Joana & Frutuoso, João & Costa, Eduardo & Fonseca, Filipa, 2024. "Heterogeneity in physician's job preferences in a dual practice context – Evidence from a DCE," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 343(C).
    18. Krucien, Nicolas & Ryan, Mandy & Hermens, Frouke, 2017. "Visual attention in multi-attributes choices: What can eye-tracking tell us?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 135(C), pages 251-267.
    19. Thomas Lundhede & Jette Bredahl Jacobsen & Nick Hanley & Niels Strange & Bo Jellesmark Thorsen, 2015. "Incorporating Outcome Uncertainty and Prior Outcome Beliefs in Stated Preferences," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 91(2), pages 296-316.
    20. Genie, Mesfin G. & Nicoló, Antonio & Pasini, Giacomo, 2020. "The role of heterogeneity of patients’ preferences in kidney transplantation," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 72(C).

    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:socmed:v:114:y:2014:i:c:p:138-150. 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.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    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.