IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v37y2017i6p680-687.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Choice Blindness and Health-State Choices among Adolescents and Adults

Author

Listed:
  • Ernest H. Law
  • Annika L. Pickard
  • Anika Kaczynski
  • A. Simon Pickard

Abstract

Objective. To assess the feasibility and validity of using a discrete choice experiment format to elicit health preferences in adolescents by comparing illogical choices and choice-blindness rates between adults and adolescents; and to explore the relationship between personality traits and health-state choices. Methods. A convenience sample of adults and adolescents (12 to 17 y old) were recruited from around Chicago, USA. A personality inventory was administered, followed by pairwise comparisons of 6 health-state scenarios which asked each candidate to select their preferred choice. Health-state descriptions were based on a simplified 3-dimension version of the EQ-5D (mobility, pain, depression, each with 3 levels). For 2 scenarios, the respondent’s preferred choice was switched; if the respondent did not notice the switch they were considered “choice blind†. Logistic regression evaluated the association of personality, gender, and age with choice blindness and health-state choice. Results. Ninety-nine respondents were recruited (44% adults). Comparing adolescents to adults, there was no significant difference in the rate of illogical preferences (9% v. 12%) or in preferring dead to the worst health state (56% v. 64%) ( P > 0.05). Choice-blindness rates were significantly higher in adolescents (35%) than adults (9%) ( P

Suggested Citation

  • Ernest H. Law & Annika L. Pickard & Anika Kaczynski & A. Simon Pickard, 2017. "Choice Blindness and Health-State Choices among Adolescents and Adults," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 37(6), pages 680-687, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:37:y:2017:i:6:p:680-687
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X17700847
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X17700847
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X17700847?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kathryn E. Flynn & Maureen A. Smith, 2007. "Personality and Health Care Decision-Making Style," The Journals of Gerontology: Series B, The Gerontological Society of America, vol. 62(5), pages 261-267.
    2. Julie Ratcliffe & Elisabeth Huynh & Katherine Stevens & John Brazier & Michael Sawyer & Terry Flynn, 2016. "Nothing About Us Without Us? A Comparison of Adolescent and Adult Health‐State Values for the Child Health Utility‐9D Using Profile Case Best–Worst Scaling," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 25(4), pages 486-496, April.
    3. Nancy J. Devlin & Paul Hansen & Paul Kind & Alan Williams, 2003. "Logical inconsistencies in survey respondents' health state valuations ‐ a methodological challenge for estimating social tariffs," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(7), pages 529-544, July.
    4. Ratcliffe, Julie & Huynh, Elisabeth & Chen, Gang & Stevens, Katherine & Swait, Joffre & Brazier, John & Sawyer, Michael & Roberts, Rachel & Flynn, Terry, 2016. "Valuing the Child Health Utility 9D: Using profile case best worst scaling methods to develop a new adolescent specific scoring algorithm," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 48-59.
    5. Mandy Ryan & Verity Watson & Vikki Entwistle, 2009. "Rationalising the ‘irrational’: a think aloud study of discrete choice experiment responses," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(3), pages 321-336, March.
    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. Richard De Abreu Lourenço & Nancy Devlin & Kirsten Howard & Jason J. Ong & Julie Ratcliffe & Jo Watson & Esther Willing & Elisabeth Huynh, 2021. "Giving a Voice to Marginalised Groups for Health Care Decision Making," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 14(1), pages 5-10, January.
    2. Aizaki, Hideo & Fogarty, James, 2019. "An R package and tutorial for case 2 best–worst scaling," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 32(C), pages 1-1.
    3. Alene Sze Jing Yong & Yi Heng Lim & Mark Wing Loong Cheong & Ednin Hamzah & Siew Li Teoh, 2022. "Willingness-to-pay for cancer treatment and outcome: a systematic review," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 23(6), pages 1037-1057, August.
    4. Charles Cunningham & Ken Deal & Yvonne Chen, 2010. "Adaptive Choice-Based Conjoint Analysis," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 3(4), pages 257-273, December.
    5. Nikita Arora & Matthew Quaife & Kara Hanson & Mylene Lagarde & Dorka Woldesenbet & Abiy Seifu & Romain Crastes dit Sourd, 2022. "Discrete choice analysis of health worker job preferences in Ethiopia: Separating attribute non‐attendance from taste heterogeneity," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(5), pages 806-819, May.
    6. Kim Dalziel & Max Catchpool & Borja García-Lorenzo & Inigo Gorostiza & Richard Norman & Oliver Rivero-Arias, 2020. "Feasibility, Validity and Differences in Adolescent and Adult EQ-5D-Y Health State Valuation in Australia and Spain: An Application of Best–Worst Scaling," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 38(5), pages 499-513, May.
    7. Chen, Gang & Ratcliffe, Julie & Milte, Rachel & Khadka, Jyoti & Kaambwa, Billingsley, 2021. "Quality of care experience in aged care: An Australia-Wide discrete choice experiment to elicit preference weights," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 289(C).
    8. Thai, Thao & Lancsar, Emily & Spinks, Jean & Freeman, Christopher & Chen, Gang, 2024. "Understanding Australian pharmacy degree holders’ job preferences through the lens of motivation-hygiene theory," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 348(C).
    9. Coast, Joanna, 2018. "A history that goes hand in hand: Reflections on the development of health economics and the role played by Social Science & Medicine, 1967–2017," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 196(C), pages 227-232.
    10. Rocamora, Beatriz & Colombo, Sergio & Glenk, Klaus, 2014. "El impacto de las respuestas inconsistentes en las medidas de bienestar estimadas con el método del experimento de elección," Economia Agraria y Recursos Naturales, Spanish Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 14(02), pages 1-22, December.
    11. Markian Pahuta & Aaron Frombach & Emile Hashem & Stewart Spence & Christina Sun & Eugene K. Wai & Joel Werier & Carl Walraven & Doug Coyle, 2019. "The Psychometric Properties of a Self-Administered, Open-Source Module for Valuing Metastatic Epidural Spinal Cord Compression Utilities," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 3(2), pages 197-204, June.
    12. Jennifer Whitty, 2012. "Insensitivity to Scope in Contingent Valuation Studies," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 10(6), pages 361-363, November.
    13. Marta Trapero-Bertran & Beatriz Rodríguez-Martín & Julio López-Bastida, 2019. "What attributes should be included in a discrete choice experiment related to health technologies? A systematic literature review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(7), pages 1-15, July.
    14. Blondiau, Yuliya & Reuter, Emmanuelle, 2019. "Why is the grass greener on the other side? Decision modes and location choice by wind energy investors," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 44-55.
    15. Andrew E. Reed & Joseph A. Mikels & Corinna E. Lockenhoff, 2012. "Choosing with confidence: Self-efficacy and preferences for choice," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 7(2), pages 173-180, March.
    16. Chris Sampson;Martina Garau, 2019. "How Should We Measure Quality of Life Impact in Rare Disease? Recent Learnings in Spinal Muscular Atrophy," Briefing 002146, Office of Health Economics.
    17. C. Mónica Capra, 2019. "Understanding decision processes in guessing games: a protocol analysis approach," Journal of the Economic Science Association, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 5(1), pages 123-135, August.
    18. Bonsang, Eric & Costa-Font, Joan, 2022. "Buying control? ‘Locus of control’ and the uptake of supplementary health insurance," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 204(C), pages 476-489.
    19. Mette Heringa & Annemieke Floor-Schreudering & Hans Wouters & Peter A. G. M. De Smet & Marcel L. Bouvy, 2018. "Preferences of Patients and Pharmacists with Regard to the Management of Drug–Drug Interactions: A Choice-Based Conjoint Analysis," Drug Safety, Springer, vol. 41(2), pages 179-189, February.
    20. Clara Mukuria & Donna Rowen & Sue Harnan & Andrew Rawdin & Ruth Wong & Roberta Ara & John Brazier, 2019. "An Updated Systematic Review of Studies Mapping (or Cross-Walking) Measures of Health-Related Quality of Life to Generic Preference-Based Measures to Generate Utility Values," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 17(3), pages 295-313, June.

    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:sae:medema:v:37:y:2017:i:6:p:680-687. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.