IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v43y2023i3p362-373.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Comparison of Ordered Categorical versus Discrete Choices within a Stated Preference Survey of Whole-Blood Donors

Author

Listed:
  • Zia Sadique

    (Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK)

  • John Cairns

    (Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK)

  • Kaat De Corte

    (Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK)

  • Sarah Willis

    (Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK)

  • Alec Miners

    (Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK)

  • Nick Bansback

    (Health Services and Policy, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada)

  • Richard Grieve

    (Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK)

Abstract

There are different stated preference (SP) approaches, including discrete choice experiments (DCEs). DCEs are a popular SP approach, but in some settings, alternative ways of framing survey questions may be more appropriate. The Health Economic Modelling Of Alternative Blood Donation Strategies (HEMO) study required choice tasks to be framed so that the study could estimate the effect of attribute levels on the frequency of a behavior—in this case, blood donation. SP questions were formulated to require ordered categorical responses from a single profile of attribute levels. However, it is unknown whether this way of framing SP questions leads to estimates of marginal rates of substitution (MRS) that are different from traditional DCE choices between 2 alternative profiles. The aim of this article is to compare estimates of relative preferences from SP questions requiring ordered categorical versus discrete choice responses. We compared relative preferences elicited from the 2 approaches for a common set of attributes and levels, formulated as choice tasks for 8,933 whole-blood donors. We found that the 2 forms of survey questions provided similar MRSs estimates. For example, respondents were willing to trade off only a small increase in travel time to receive a health report, irrespective of whether the choice given was binary (DCE response; approximately 3 min) or from an ordered category (about 8 min). The finding that any differences in the estimated MRSs are not of substantive importance offers some reassurance for policy makers in that estimates of relative preference may be robust to alternative ways of framing the survey questions. These findings can encourage future studies to frame choice tasks that align with the study’s objective. Highlights This article compares the relative preferences from stated preference (SP) questions requiring ordered categorical versus discrete choice responses. The approaches were contrasted for blood donation service characteristics that offer opportunities to donate blood. The estimates of relative preferences for alternative blood donation service characteristics were similar between the 2 forms of SP approach. This study illustrates how SP survey questions can be formulated to provide responses on an ordered categorical scale and to estimate marginal rates of substitution between different attributes, which can be compared with those derived from discrete choice experiment (DCE) choices. The article highlights the potential value of considering alternative choice framings rather than relying solely on DCEs.

Suggested Citation

  • Zia Sadique & John Cairns & Kaat De Corte & Sarah Willis & Alec Miners & Nick Bansback & Richard Grieve, 2023. "A Comparison of Ordered Categorical versus Discrete Choices within a Stated Preference Survey of Whole-Blood Donors," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 43(3), pages 362-373, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:43:y:2023:i:3:p:362-373
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X221145048
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X221145048
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X221145048?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. Hess, Stephane & Train, Kenneth, 2017. "Correlation and scale in mixed logit models," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 1-8.
    2. Richard Carson & Nicholas Flores & Norman Meade, 2001. "Contingent Valuation: Controversies and Evidence," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 19(2), pages 173-210, June.
    3. Richard Carson & Jordan Louviere, 2011. "A Common Nomenclature for Stated Preference Elicitation Approaches," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 49(4), pages 539-559, August.
    4. Nguyen, Thanh Cong & Le, Hoa Thu & Nguyen, Hang Dieu & Ngo, Mai Thanh & Nguyen, Hong Quang, 2021. "Examining ordering effects and strategic behaviour in a discrete choice experiment," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 394-413.
    5. Mandy Ryan & Verity Watson, 2009. "Comparing welfare estimates from payment card contingent valuation and discrete choice experiments," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(4), pages 389-401, April.
    6. Mandy Ryan, 2004. "A comparison of stated preference methods for estimating monetary values," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(3), pages 291-296, March.
    7. Lancsar, Emily & Louviere, Jordan & Flynn, Terry, 2007. "Several methods to investigate relative attribute impact in stated preference experiments," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 64(8), pages 1738-1753, April.
    8. Fredrik Carlsson & Peter Martinsson, 2003. "Design techniques for stated preference methods in health economics," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(4), pages 281-294, April.
    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. Robert J. Johnston & Kevin J. Boyle & Wiktor (Vic) Adamowicz & Jeff Bennett & Roy Brouwer & Trudy Ann Cameron & W. Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Riccardo Scarpa & Roger Tourangeau & Ch, 2017. "Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(2), pages 319-405.
    2. Andersson, Henrik & Hole, Arne Risa & Svensson, Mikael, 2016. "Valuation of small and multiple health risks: A critical analysis of SP data applied to food and water safety," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 41-53.
    3. Emily Lancsar & Peter Burge, 2014. "Choice modelling research in health economics," Chapters, in: Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly (ed.), Handbook of Choice Modelling, chapter 28, pages 675-687, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    4. Mahieu, Pierre-Alexandre & Andersson, Henrik & Beaumais, Olivier & Crastes dit Sourd, Romain & Hess, François-Charles & Wolff, François-Charles, 2017. "Stated preferences: a unique database composed of 1657 recent published articles in journals related to agriculture, environment, or health," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), vol. 98(3), November.
    5. Van Houtven, George L. & Pattanayak, Subhrendu K. & Usmani, Faraz & Yang, Jui-Chen, 2017. "What are Households Willing to Pay for Improved Water Access? Results from a Meta-Analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 126-135.
    6. Roy Brouwer & Fumbi Job & Bianca Kroon & Richard Johnston, 2015. "Comparing Willingness to Pay for Improved Drinking-Water Quality Using Stated Preference Methods in Rural and Urban Kenya," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 13(1), pages 81-94, February.
    7. Kaleb S. Jada & Mequanint B. Melesse & Marrit Berg, 2023. "The effects of safety certification and nutrition messaging on the demand for nutritionally enhanced food in urban Ethiopia," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 15(2), pages 395-409, April.
    8. Alessandro Mengoni & Chiara Seghieri & Sabina Nuti, 2013. "The application of discrete choice experiments in health economics: a systematic review of the literature," Working Papers 201301, Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna of Pisa, Istituto di Management.
    9. Kaambwa, Billingsley & Lancsar, Emily & McCaffrey, Nicola & Chen, Gang & Gill, Liz & Cameron, Ian D. & Crotty, Maria & Ratcliffe, Julie, 2015. "Investigating consumers' and informal carers' views and preferences for consumer directed care: A discrete choice experiment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 81-94.
    10. Pedersen, Line Bjørnskov & Hess, Stephane & Kjær, Trine, 2016. "Asymmetric information and user orientation in general practice: Exploring the agency relationship in a best–worst scaling study," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 115-130.
    11. Neustadt, Ilja & Zweifel, Peter, 2010. "Is the Welfare State Sustainable? Experimental Evidence on Citizens' Preferences for Redistribution," MPRA Paper 22233, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    12. Halkos, George, 2012. "The use of contingent valuation in assessing marine and coastal ecosystems’ water quality: A review," MPRA Paper 42183, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    13. Neustadt, Ilja & Zweifel, Peter, 2018. "Redistribution in Whose Favor? Preferences with Regard to Nationality and Type of Beneficiaries," MPRA Paper 119465, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    14. Ståle Navrud & Jon Strand, 2018. "Valuing Global Ecosystem Services: What Do European Experts Say? Applying the Delphi Method to Contingent Valuation of the Amazon Rainforest," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 70(1), pages 249-269, May.
    15. Farr, Marina & Stoeckl, Natalie & Alam Beg, Rabiul, 2014. "The non-consumptive (tourism) ‘value’ of marine species in the Northern section of the Great Barrier Reef," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 89-103.
    16. Stella Nalukwago Settumba & Marian Shanahan & Willings Botha & Muhammad Zulilhaam Ramli & Georgina Mary Chambers, 2019. "Reliability and Validity of the Contingent Valuation Method for Estimating Willingness to Pay: A Case of In Vitro Fertilisation," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 17(1), pages 103-110, February.
    17. Aaron J. Staples & Carson J. Reeling & Nicole J. Olynk Widmar & Jayson L. Lusk, 2020. "Consumer willingness to pay for sustainability attributes in beer: A choice experiment using eco‐labels," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 36(4), pages 591-612, October.
    18. Pierre-Alexandre Mahieu & Henrik Andersson & Olivier Beaumais & Romain Crastes & François-Charles Wolff, 2014. "Is Choice Experiment Becoming more Popular than Contingent Valuation? A Systematic Review in Agriculture, Environment and Health," Working Papers 2014.12, FAERE - French Association of Environmental and Resource Economists.
    19. Gómez-Valenzuela, Víctor & Alpízar, Francisco & Bonilla, Solhanlle & Franco-Billini, Carol, 2020. "Mining conflict in the Dominican Republic: The case of Loma Miranda," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 66(C).
    20. Marianne Lefebvre & Masha Maslianskaia-Pautrel & Pauline Laille, 2022. "Alternative adaptation scenarios towards pesticide-free urban green spaces: Welfare implication for French citizens," Post-Print hal-03694169, HAL.

    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:43:y:2023:i:3:p:362-373. 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.