IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/patien/v13y2020i2d10.1007_s40271-019-00391-w.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Picture is Worth a Thousand Words: The Role of Survey Training Materials in Stated-Preference Studies

Author

Listed:
  • Caroline M. Vass

    (The University of Manchester
    RTI Health Solutions)

  • Niall J. Davison

    (The University of Manchester
    BresMed)

  • Geert Stichele

    (MindBytes)

  • Katherine Payne

    (The University of Manchester)

Abstract

Background Online survey-based methods are increasingly used to elicit preferences for healthcare. This digitization creates an opportunity for interactive survey elements, potentially improving respondents’ understanding and/or engagement. Objective Our objective was to understand whether, and how, training materials in a survey influenced stated preferences. Methods An online discrete-choice experiment (DCE) was designed to elicit public preferences for a new targeted approach to prescribing biologics (“biologic calculator”) for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) compared with conventional prescribing. The DCE presented three alternatives, two biologic calculators and a conventional approach (opt out), described by five attributes: delay to treatment, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, infection risk, and cost saving to the national health service. Respondents were randomized to receive training materials as plain text or an animated storyline. Training materials contained information about RA and approaches to treatment and described the biologic calculator. Background questions included sociodemographics and self-reported measures of task difficulty and attribute non-attendance. DCE data were analyzed using conditional and heteroskedastic conditional logit (HCL) models. Results In total, 300 respondents completed the DCE, receiving either plain text (n = 158) or the animated storyline (n = 142). The HCL showed the estimated coefficients for all attributes aligned with a priori expectations and were statistically significant. The scale term was statistically significant, indicating that respondents who received plain-text materials had more random choices. Further tests suggested preference homogeneity after accounting for differences in scale. Conclusions Using animated training materials did not change the preferences of respondents, but they appeared to improve choice consistency, potentially allowing researchers to include more complex designs with increased numbers of attributes, levels, alternatives or choice sets.

Suggested Citation

  • Caroline M. Vass & Niall J. Davison & Geert Stichele & Katherine Payne, 2020. "A Picture is Worth a Thousand Words: The Role of Survey Training Materials in Stated-Preference Studies," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 13(2), pages 163-173, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:patien:v:13:y:2020:i:2:d:10.1007_s40271-019-00391-w
    DOI: 10.1007/s40271-019-00391-w
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40271-019-00391-w
    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/s40271-019-00391-w?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. Francisco Alpizar & Fredrik Carlsson & Olof Johansson-Stenman, 2008. "Does context matter more for hypothetical than for actual contributions? Evidence from a natural field experiment," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 11(3), pages 299-314, September.
    2. Louviere,Jordan J. & Hensher,David A. & Swait,Joffre D. With contributions by-Name:Adamowicz,Wiktor, 2000. "Stated Choice Methods," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521788304, November.
    3. 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.
    4. Alpizar, Francisco & Carlsson, Fredrik & Johansson-Stenman, Olof, 2008. "Full title Does Context Matter More for Hypothetical Than for Actual Contributions? Evidence from a Natural Field Experiment," RFF Working Paper Series dp-08-02-efd, Resources for the Future.
    5. Louviere, Jordan J. & Lancsar, Emily, 2009. "Choice experiments in health: the good, the bad, the ugly and toward a brighter future," Health Economics, Policy and Law, Cambridge University Press, vol. 4(4), pages 527-546, October.
    6. 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.
    7. Gerd Gigerenzer & Ralph Hertwig & Eva Van Den Broek & Barbara Fasolo & Konstantinos V. Katsikopoulos, 2005. "“A 30% Chance of Rain Tomorrow”: How Does the Public Understand Probabilistic Weather Forecasts?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(3), pages 623-629, June.
    8. Boxall, Peter C. & Adamowicz, Wiktor L. & Swait, Joffre & Williams, Michael & Louviere, Jordan, 1996. "A comparison of stated preference methods for environmental valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(3), pages 243-253, September.
    9. Glen L. Urban & John R. Hauser & John H. Roberts, 1990. "Prelaunch Forecasting of New Automobiles," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(4), pages 401-421, April.
    10. Whittington, Dale & Smith, V. Kerry & Okorafor, Apia & Okore, Augustine & Liu, Jin Long & McPhail, Alexander, 1992. "Giving respondents time to think in contingent valuation studies: A developing country application," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 22(3), pages 205-225, May.
    11. Caroline Vass & Dan Rigby & Katherine Payne, 2019. "“I Was Trying to Do the Maths”: Exploring the Impact of Risk Communication in Discrete Choice Experiments," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 12(1), pages 113-123, February.
    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. Milad Haghani & Michiel C. J. Bliemer & John M. Rose & Harmen Oppewal & Emily Lancsar, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part I. Integrative synthesis of empirical evidence and conceptualisation of external validity," Papers 2102.02940, arXiv.org.
    2. Hangjian Wu & Emmanouil Mentzakis & Marije Schaafsma, 2022. "Exploring Different Assumptions about Outcome-Related Risk Perceptions in Discrete Choice Experiments," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 81(3), pages 531-572, March.
    3. Pamela Gongora-Salazar & Rafael Perera & Oliver Rivero-Arias & Apostolos Tsiachristas, 2024. "Unravelling Elements of Value of Healthcare and Assessing their Importance Using Evidence from Two Discrete-Choice Experiments in England," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 42(10), pages 1145-1159, October.

    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. Matthew Quaife & Fern Terris-Prestholt & Gian Luca Di Tanna & Peter Vickerman, 2018. "How well do discrete choice experiments predict health choices? A systematic review and meta-analysis of external validity," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 19(8), pages 1053-1066, November.
    3. Sardaro, Ruggiero & Faccilongo, Nicola & Roselli, Luigi, 2019. "Wind farms, farmland occupation and compensation: Evidences from landowners’ preferences through a stated choice survey in Italy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 133(C).
    4. Newell, Laurie W. & Swallow, Stephen K., 2013. "Real-payment choice experiments: Valuing forested wetlands and spatial attributes within a landscape context," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 37-47.
    5. Carlsson, Fredrik & Kataria, Mitesh & Krupnick, Alan & Lampi, Elina & Löfgren, Åsa & Qin, Ping & Sterner, Thomas, 2013. "The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth—A multiple country test of an oath script," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 105-121.
    6. 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.
    7. Melanie Lefevre, 2011. "Willingness-to-pay for Local Milk-based Dairy Product in Senegal," CREPP Working Papers 1108, Centre de Recherche en Economie Publique et de la Population (CREPP) (Research Center on Public and Population Economics) HEC-Management School, University of Liège.
    8. Joachim Marti, 2012. "Assessing preferences for improved smoking cessation medications: a discrete choice experiment," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 13(5), pages 533-548, October.
    9. Concu, Giovanni B., 2007. "Investigating distance effects on environmental values: a choice modelling approach," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 51(2), pages 1-20.
    10. Ting Li & Robert J. Kauffman & Eric van Heck & Peter Vervest & Benedict G. C. Dellaert, 2014. "Consumer Informedness and Firm Information Strategy," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 25(2), pages 345-363, June.
    11. Claire Teunenbroek & René Bekkers & Bianca Beersma, 2021. "They ought to do it too: Understanding effects of social information on donation behavior and mood," International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing, Springer;International Association of Public and Non-Profit Marketing, vol. 18(2), pages 229-253, June.
    12. Sagebiel, Julian & Müller, Jakob R. & Rommel, Jens, 2013. "Are Consumers Willing to Pay More for Electricity from Cooperatives? Results from an Online Choice Experiment in Germany," MPRA Paper 52385, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    13. Emmanouil Mentzakis & Mandy Ryan & Paul McNamee, 2011. "Using discrete choice experiments to value informal care tasks: exploring preference heterogeneity," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(8), pages 930-944, August.
    14. Newman, George E. & Jeremy Shen, Y., 2012. "The counterintuitive effects of thank-you gifts on charitable giving," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 33(5), pages 973-983.
    15. Sotirios Thanos & Mark Wardman & Abigail Bristow, 2011. "Valuing Aircraft Noise: Stated Choice Experiments Reflecting Inter-Temporal Noise Changes from Airport Relocation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 50(4), pages 559-583, December.
    16. Dale Whittington & Vic Adamowicz, 2010. "The Use of Hypothetical Baselines in Stated Preference Surveys," EEPSEA Special and Technical Paper sp201009s1, Economy and Environment Program for Southeast Asia (EEPSEA), revised Sep 2010.
    17. Alemu I, Jahson Berhane & Schuhmann, Peter & Agard, John, 2019. "Mixed preferences for lionfish encounters on reefs in Tobago: Results from a choice experiment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 1-1.
    18. De Valck, Jeremy & Vlaeminck, Pieter & Liekens, Inge & Aertsens, Joris & Chen, Wendy & Vranken, Liesbet, 2012. "The sources of preference heterogeneity for nature restoration scenarios," Working Papers 146522, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Centre for Agricultural and Food Economics.
    19. Danae Arroyos-Calvera & Michalis Drouvelis & Johannes Lohse & Rebecca McDonald, 2020. "Improving compliance with COVID-19 guidance: a workplace field experiment," Discussion Papers 20-30, Department of Economics, University of Birmingham.
    20. Joseph Cook & Dale Whittington & Do Gia Canh & F. Reed Johnson & Andrew Nyamete, 2007. "Reliability Of Stated Preferences For Cholera And Typhoid Vaccines With Time To Think In Hue, Vietnam," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 45(1), pages 100-114, January.

    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:13:y:2020:i:2:d:10.1007_s40271-019-00391-w. 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.