IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/eujhec/v24y2023i3d10.1007_s10198-022-01482-6.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Do preferences differ based on respondent experience of a health issue and its treatment? A case study using a public health intervention

Author

Listed:
  • David J. Mott

    (Office of Health Economics
    Population Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University)

  • Laura Ternent

    (Population Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University)

  • Luke Vale

    (Population Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University)

Abstract

Objectives Preference information is increasingly being elicited to support decision-making. Although discrete choice experiments (DCEs) are commonly used, little is known about how respondents’ relative experience of a health issue, and its treatment, might impact the results of preference studies. The aim of this study was to explore how preferences differ between groups of individuals with varying levels of experience of a health issue and its treatment, using a weight loss maintenance (WLM) programme as a case study. Methods An online DCE survey was provided to four groups, each differing in their level of experience with weight loss and WLM programmes. One group was recruited from a randomised controlled trial of a WLM programme (ISRCTN14657176) and the other three from an online panel. Choice data were analysed using mixed logit models. Relative attribute importance scores and willingness-to-pay (WTP) estimates were estimated to enable comparisons between groups. Results Preferences differed between the groups across different attributes. The largest differences related to the outcome (weight re-gain) and cost attributes, resulting in WTP estimates that were statistically significantly different. The most experienced group was willing to pay £0.35 (95% CI: £0.28, £0.42) to avoid a percentage point increase in weight re-gain, compared with £0.12 (95% CI: £0.08, £0.16) for the least experienced group. Conclusion This study provides evidence in a public health setting to suggest that preferences differ based on respondent experience of the health issue and its treatment. Health preference researchers should therefore carefully consider the appropriate composition of their study samples.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:eujhec:v:24:y:2023:i:3:d:10.1007_s10198-022-01482-6
    DOI: 10.1007/s10198-022-01482-6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10198-022-01482-6
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10198-022-01482-6?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. Neuman, Tzahi & Neuman, Einat & Neuman, Shoshana, 2010. "Explorations of the effect of experience on preferences for a health-care service," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 407-419, June.
    2. Caroline M. Vass & Stuart Wright & Michael Burton & Katherine Payne, 2018. "Scale Heterogeneity in Healthcare Discrete Choice Experiments: A Primer," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 11(2), pages 167-173, April.
    3. Richard Norman & Benjamin M. Craig & Paul Hansen & Marcel F. Jonker & John Rose & Deborah J. Street & Brendan Mulhern, 2019. "Issues in the Design of Discrete Choice Experiments," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 12(3), pages 281-285, June.
    4. 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.
    5. San Miguel, Fernando & Ryan, Mandy & Scott, Anthony, 2002. "Are preferences stable? The case of health care," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 1-14, May.
    6. Caroline Vass & Dan Rigby & Katherine Payne, 2017. "The Role of Qualitative Research Methods in Discrete Choice Experiments," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 37(3), pages 298-313, April.
    7. Arne Risa Hole, 2007. "A comparison of approaches to estimating confidence intervals for willingness to pay measures," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(8), pages 827-840, August.
    8. Versteegh, M.M. & Brouwer, W.B.F., 2016. "Patient and general public preferences for health states: A call to reconsider current guidelines," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 66-74.
    9. Jacoline C. Bouvy & Luke Cowie & Rosemary Lovett & Deborah Morrison & Heidi Livingstone & Nick Crabb, 2020. "Use of Patient Preference Studies in HTA Decision Making: A NICE Perspective," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 13(2), pages 145-149, April.
    10. Ilene L. Hollin & Benjamin M. Craig & Joanna Coast & Kathleen Beusterien & Caroline Vass & Rachael DiSantostefano & Holly Peay, 2020. "Reporting Formative Qualitative Research to Support the Development of Quantitative Preference Study Protocols and Corresponding Survey Instruments: Guidelines for Authors and Reviewers," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 13(1), pages 121-136, February.
    11. Michela Tinelli & Mandy Ryan & Christine Bond, 2016. "What, who and when? Incorporating a discrete choice experiment into an economic evaluation," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 6(1), pages 1-9, December.
    12. Michael Clark & Domino Determann & Stavros Petrou & Domenico Moro & Esther Bekker-Grob, 2014. "Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: A Review of the Literature," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 32(9), pages 883-902, September.
    13. Finkelstein, Eric A. & Bilger, Marcel & Flynn, Terry N. & Malhotra, Chetna, 2015. "Preferences for end-of-life care among community-dwelling older adults and patients with advanced cancer: A discrete choice experiment," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(11), pages 1482-1489.
    14. Juan Marcos Gonzalez, 2019. "A Guide to Measuring and Interpreting Attribute Importance," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 12(3), pages 287-295, June.
    15. Stuart J. Wright & Caroline M. Vass & Gene Sim & Michael Burton & Denzil G. Fiebig & Katherine Payne, 2018. "Accounting for Scale Heterogeneity in Healthcare-Related Discrete Choice Experiments when Comparing Stated Preferences: A Systematic Review," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 11(5), pages 475-488, October.
    16. 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.
    17. Mandy Ryan & Cristina Ubach, 2003. "Testing for an experience endowment effect in health care," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(7), pages 407-410.
    18. David John Mott, 2018. "Incorporating Quantitative Patient Preference Data into Healthcare Decision Making Processes: Is HTA Falling Behind?," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 11(3), pages 249-252, June.
    19. 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.
    20. F. Reed Johnson & Kathleen Beusterien & Semra Özdemir & Leslie Wilson, 2017. "Giving Patients a Meaningful Voice in United States Regulatory Decision Making: The Role for Health Preference Research," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 10(4), pages 523-526, August.
    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. 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.
    2. Vo, Linh K. & Allen, Michelle J. & Cunich, Michelle & Thillainadesan, Janani & McPhail, Steven M. & Sharma, Pakhi & Wallis, Shannon & McGowan, Kelly & Carter, Hannah E., 2024. "Stakeholders’ preferences for the design and delivery of virtual care services: A systematic review of discrete choice experiments," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 340(C).
    3. Juan M. Gonzalez Sepulveda & F. Reed Johnson & Deborah A. Marshall, 2021. "Incomplete information and irrelevant attributes in stated‐preference values for health interventions," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(11), pages 2637-2648, November.
    4. Buckell, John & Hess, Stephane, 2019. "Stubbing out hypothetical bias: improving tobacco market predictions by combining stated and revealed preference data," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 93-102.
    5. 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).
    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. Determann, Domino & Lambooij, Mattijs S. & de Bekker-Grob, Esther W. & Hayen, Arthur P. & Varkevisser, Marco & Schut, Frederik T. & Wit, G. Ardine de, 2016. "What health plans do people prefer? The trade-off between premium and provider choice," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 10-18.
    8. Neuman, Einat & Neuman, Shoshana, 2006. "Explorations of the Effect of Experience on Preferences: Two Health-Care Case Studies," IZA Discussion Papers 2028, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    9. Merle Gijsbers & Iris Elise Keizer & Stephanie Else Schouten & Janneke Louise Trompert & Catharina G. M. Groothuis-Oudshoorn & Janine Astrid Til, 2021. "Public Preferences in Priority Setting when Admitting Patients to the ICU During the COVID-19 Crisis: A Pilot Study," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 14(3), pages 331-338, May.
    10. Kevin Marsh & Nicolas Krucien, 2022. "Evaluating the Consistency of Patient Preference Estimates: Systematic Variation in Survival—Adverse Event Trade-Offs in Patients with Cancer or Cardiovascular Disease," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 15(1), pages 69-75, January.
    11. Sicsic, Jonathan & Krucien, Nicolas & Franc, Carine, 2016. "What are GPs' preferences for financial and non-financial incentives in cancer screening? Evidence for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancers," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 116-127.
    12. 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.
    13. Jackson, Louise & Al-Janabi, Hareth & Roberts, Tracy & Ross, Jonthan, 2021. "Exploring young people's preferences for STI screening in the UK: A qualitative study and discrete choice experiment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 279(C).
    14. Viberg Johansson, Jennifer & Shah, Nisha & Haraldsdóttir, Eik & Bentzen, Heidi Beate & Coy, Sarah & Kaye, Jane & Mascalzoni, Deborah & Veldwijk, Jorien, 2021. "Governance mechanisms for sharing of health data: An approach towards selecting attributes for complex discrete choice experiment studies," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 66(C).
    15. Mina Bahrampour & Joshua Byrnes & Richard Norman & Paul A. Scuffham & Martin Downes, 2020. "Discrete choice experiments to generate utility values for multi-attribute utility instruments: a systematic review of methods," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 21(7), pages 983-992, September.
    16. Elliott, Jack & Tsuchiya, Aki, 2022. "Do they just know more, or do they also have different preferences? An exploratory analysis of the effects of self-reporting serious health problems on health state valuation," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 315(C).
    17. Fanni Rencz & Peep F. M. Stalmeier & Márta Péntek & Valentin Brodszky & Gábor Ruzsa & Lóránt Gönczi & Károly Palatka & László Herszényi & Eszter Schäfer & János Banai & Mariann Rutka & László Gulácsi , 2019. "Patient and general population values for luminal and perianal fistulising Crohn’s disease health states," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(1), pages 91-100, June.
    18. Osborne, Matthew & Lambe, Fiona & Ran, Ylva & Dehmel, Naira & Tabacco, Giovanni Alberto & Balungira, Joshua & Pérez-Viana, Borja & Widmark, Erik & Holmlid, Stefan & Verschoor, Arjan, 2022. "Designing development interventions: The application of service design and discrete choice experiments in complex settings," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 158(C).
    19. Jia, Zhiyang & Vattø, Trine Engh, 2021. "Predicting the path of labor supply responses when state dependence matters," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(C).
    20. Mandeville, Kate L. & Ulaya, Godwin & Lagarde, Mylène & Muula, Adamson S. & Dzowela, Titha & Hanson, Kara, 2016. "The use of specialty training to retain doctors in Malawi: A discrete choice experiment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 169(C), pages 109-118.

    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:spr:eujhec:v:24:y:2023:i:3:d:10.1007_s10198-022-01482-6. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.