IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/patien/v11y2018i5d10.1007_s40271-018-0303-y.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Patient Preferences for Managing Insomnia: A Discrete Choice Experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Janet M. Y. Cheung

    (The University of Sydney
    University of Sydney)

  • Delwyn J. Bartlett

    (University of Sydney)

  • Carol L. Armour

    (University of Sydney
    Sydney Local Health District)

  • Bandana Saini

    (The University of Sydney
    University of Sydney)

  • Tracey-Lea Laba

    (The University of New South Wales)

Abstract

Background Despite the rapid development of effective treatments, both pharmacological and non-pharmacological, insomnia management remains suboptimal at the practice interface. Patient preferences play a critical role in influencing treatment outcomes. However, there is currently a mismatch between patient preferences and clinician recommendations, partly perpetuated by a limited understanding of the patients’ decision-making process. Objectives The aim of our study was to empirically quantify patient preferences for treatment attributes common to both pharmacological and non-pharmacological insomnia treatments. Method An efficient dual-response discrete choice experiment was conducted to evaluate patient treatment preferences for managing insomnia. The sample included 205 patients with self-reported insomnia and an Insomnia Severity Index ≥ 14. Participants were presented with two unlabelled hypothetical scenarios with an opt-out option across 12 choice sets. Data were analyzed using a mixed multinomial logit model to investigate the influence of five attributes (i.e. time, onset of action, maintainability of improved sleep, length of treatment, and monthly cost) on treatment preferences. Results Treatments were preferentially viewed if they conferred long-term sleep benefits (p

Suggested Citation

  • Janet M. Y. Cheung & Delwyn J. Bartlett & Carol L. Armour & Bandana Saini & Tracey-Lea Laba, 2018. "Patient Preferences for Managing Insomnia: A Discrete Choice Experiment," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 11(5), pages 503-514, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:patien:v:11:y:2018:i:5:d:10.1007_s40271-018-0303-y
    DOI: 10.1007/s40271-018-0303-y
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40271-018-0303-y
    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/s40271-018-0303-y?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. Jeff Brazell & Christopher Diener & Ekaterina Karniouchina & William Moore & Válerie Séverin & Pierre-Francois Uldry, 2006. "The no-choice option and dual response choice designs," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 17(4), pages 255-268, December.
    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. Greg M. Allenby & Jeff Brazell & John R. Howell & Peter E. Rossi, 2014. "Valuation of Patented Product Features," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 57(3), pages 629-663.
    2. Lehmann, Nico & Sloot, Daniel & Schüle, Christopher & Ardone, Armin & Fichtner, Wolf, 2023. "The motivational drivers behind consumer preferences for regional electricity – Results of a choice experiment in Southern Germany," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    3. YiChun Miriam Liu & Jeff D. Brazell & Greg M. Allenby, 2022. "Non-linear pricing effects in conjoint analysis," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 20(4), pages 397-430, December.
    4. Fraser, Iain & Balcombe, Kelvin & Williams, Louis & McSorley, Eugene, 2021. "Preference stability in discrete choice experiments. Some evidence using eye-tracking," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    5. Landmann, D. & Feil, J.-H. & Lagerkvist, C.J. & Otter, V., 2018. "Designing capacity development activities of small-scale farmers in developing countries based on discrete choice experiments," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277738, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    6. Schlereth, Christian & Skiera, Bernd & Schulz, Fabian, 2018. "Why do consumers prefer static instead of dynamic pricing plans? An empirical study for a better understanding of the low preferences for time-variant pricing plans," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 269(3), pages 1165-1179.
    7. Masiero, Lorenzo & Rose, John M., 2013. "The role of the reference alternative in the specification of asymmetric discrete choice models," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 83-92.
    8. Carsten Herbes & Johannes Dahlin & Peter Kurz, 2020. "Consumer Willingness To Pay for Proenvironmental Attributes of Biogas Digestate-Based Potting Soil," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(16), pages 1-19, August.
    9. Lim, Sesil & Huh, Sung-Yoon & Shin, Jungwoo & Lee, Jongsu & Lee, Yong-Gil, 2019. "Enhancing public acceptance of renewable heat obligation policies in South Korea: Consumer preferences and policy implications," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 1167-1177.
    10. Stefanie Heinzle, 2012. "Disclosure of Energy Operating Cost Information: A Silver Bullet for Overcoming the Energy-Efficiency Gap?," Journal of Consumer Policy, Springer, vol. 35(1), pages 43-64, March.
    11. Hofstetter, Reto & Miller, Klaus M. & Krohmer, Harley & Zhang, Z. John, 2021. "A de-biased direct question approach to measuring consumers' willingness to pay," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 70-84.
    12. Kaat Van Hoyweghen & Janne Bemelmans & Hendrik Feyaerts & Goedele Van den Broeck & Miet Maertens, 2023. "Small Family, Happy Family? Fertility Preferences and the Quantity–Quality Trade-Off in Sub-Saharan Africa," Population Research and Policy Review, Springer;Southern Demographic Association (SDA), vol. 42(6), pages 1-35, December.
    13. Sascha Kraus & Christine Mitter & Felix Eggers & Philipp Stieg, 2017. "Drivers of internationalization success: a conjoint choice experiment on German SME managers," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 11(3), pages 691-716, July.
    14. Kelvin Balcombe & Dylan Bradley & Iain Fraser, 2021. "Do Consumers Really Care? An Economic Analysis of Consumer Attitudes Towards Food Produced Using Prohibited Production Methods," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 72(2), pages 452-469, June.
    15. Connolly, Cristina & Stearns, Stacey, 2024. "Game-Based Learning in Extension Education: An Assessment of the Impact on Consumer Learning and Behavior," Applied Economics Teaching Resources (AETR), Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 6(2), July.
    16. Kallas, Zein & Gil, José María, 2015. "Do the Spanish want biodiesel? A case study in the Catalan transport sector," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 398-406.
    17. Kosenius, Anna-Kaisa & Ollikainen, Markku, 2013. "Valuation of environmental and societal trade-offs of renewable energy sources," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 1148-1156.
    18. Scott, Anthony & Witt, Julia, 2020. "Loss aversion, reference dependence and diminishing sensitivity in choice experiments," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 37(C).
    19. Oliver Meixner & Michael Malleier & Rainer Haas, 2024. "Towards Sustainable Eating Habits of Generation Z: Perception of and Willingness to Pay for Plant-Based Meat Alternatives," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(8), pages 1-16, April.
    20. Gensler, Sonja & Hinz, Oliver & Skiera, Bernd & Theysohn, Sven, 2012. "Willingness-to-pay estimation with choice-based conjoint analysis: Addressing extreme response behavior with individually adapted designs," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 219(2), pages 368-378.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:patien:v:11:y:2018:i:5:d:10.1007_s40271-018-0303-y. 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.