IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/patien/v14y2021i1d10.1007_s40271-020-00484-x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Mobilising the Next Generation of Stated-Preference Studies: the Association of Access Device with Choice Behaviour and Data Quality

Author

Listed:
  • Caroline M. Vass

    (RTI Health Solutions
    The University of Manchester)

  • Marco Boeri

    (RTI Health Solutions)

Abstract

Background Literature reviews show stated-preference studies, used to understand the values individuals place on health and health care, are increasingly administered online, potentially maximising respondent access and allowing for enhanced response quality. Online respondents may often choose whether to use a desktop or laptop personal computer (PC), tablet or smartphone, all with different screen sizes and modes of data entry, to complete the survey. To avoid differences in measurement errors, frequently respondents are asked to complete the surveys on a PC despite evidence that handheld devices are increasingly used for internet browsing. As yet, it is unknown if or how the device used to access the survey affects responses and/or the subsequent valuations derived. Method This study uses data from a discrete choice experiment (DCE) administered online to elicit preferences of a general population sample of females for a national breast screening programme. The analysis explores differences in key outcomes such as completion rates, engagement with the survey materials, respondent characteristics, response time, failure of an internal validity test and health care preferences for (1) handheld devices and (2) PC users. Preferences were analysed using a fully correlated random parameter logit (RPL) model to allow for unexplained scale and preference heterogeneity. Results One thousand respondents completed the survey in its entirety. The most popular access devices were PCs (n = 785), including Windows (n = 705) and Macbooks (n = 69). Two-hundred and fifteen respondents accessed the survey on a handheld device. Most outcomes related to survey behaviour, including failure of a dominance check, ‘flat lining’, self-reported attribute non-attendance (ANA) or respondent-rated task difficulty, did not differ by device type (p > 0.100). Respondents accessing the survey using a PC were generally quicker (median time to completion 14.5 min compared with 16 min for those using handheld devices) and were significantly less likely to speed through a webpage. Although there was evidence of preference intensity (taste) or variability (scale) heterogeneity across respondents in the sample, it was not driven by the access device. Conclusion Overall, we find that neither preferences nor choice behaviour is associated with the type of access device, as long as respondents are presented with question formats that are easy to use on small touchscreens. Health preference researchers should optimise preference instruments for a range of devices and encourage respondents to complete the surveys using their preferred device. However, we suggest that access device characteristics should be gathered and included when reporting results.

Suggested Citation

  • Caroline M. Vass & Marco Boeri, 2021. "Mobilising the Next Generation of Stated-Preference Studies: the Association of Access Device with Choice Behaviour and Data Quality," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 14(1), pages 55-63, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:patien:v:14:y:2021:i:1:d:10.1007_s40271-020-00484-x
    DOI: 10.1007/s40271-020-00484-x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40271-020-00484-x
    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/s40271-020-00484-x?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. Stephanie L. Lim & Jui-Chen Yang & Jessie Ehrisman & Laura J. Havrilesky & Shelby D. Reed, 2020. "Are Videos or Text Better for Describing Attributes in Stated-Preference Surveys?," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 13(4), pages 401-408, August.
    2. Louviere,Jordan J. & Hensher,David A. & Swait,Joffre D., 2000. "Stated Choice Methods," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521788304, January.
    3. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521747387, January.
    4. David Hensher & William Greene, 2003. "The Mixed Logit model: The state of practice," Transportation, Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 133-176, May.
    5. 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.
    6. 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. 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).
    2. Benjamin Matthew Craig & Kim Rand & John D. Hartman, 2022. "Preference Paths and Their Kaizen Tasks for Small Samples," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 15(2), pages 187-196, March.
    3. Thao Thai & Michiel Bliemer & Gang Chen & Jean Spinks & Sonja de New & Emily Lancsar, 2023. "Comparison of a full and partial choice set design in a labeled discrete choice experiment," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 32(6), pages 1284-1304, June.

    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. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Hensher, David A., 2021. "The landscape of econometric discrete choice modelling research," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    2. Mesfin G. Genie & Nicolas Krucien & Mandy Ryan, 2021. "Weighting or aggregating? Investigating information processing in multi‐attribute choices," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(6), pages 1291-1305, June.
    3. Mohammed H. Alemu & Søren Bøye Olsen & Suzanne E. Vedel & John Kinyuru & Kennedy O. Pambo, 2016. "Integrating sensory evaluations in incentivized discrete choice experiments to assess consumer demand for cricket flour buns in Kenya," IFRO Working Paper 2016/02, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics.
    4. de Ayala, Amaia & Hoyos, David & Mariel, Petr, 2015. "Suitability of discrete choice experiments for landscape management under the European Landscape Convention," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 79-96.
    5. 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.
    6. Lan Anh Nguyen & Manh-Hung Nguyen & Viet-Ngu Hoang & Arnaud Reynaud & Michel Simioni & Clevo Wilson, 2024. "Tourists’ preferences and willingness to pay for protecting a World Heritage site from coastal erosion in Vietnam," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 26(11), pages 27607-27628, November.
    7. Basu, Debasis & Hunt, John Douglas, 2012. "Valuing of attributes influencing the attractiveness of suburban train service in Mumbai city: A stated preference approach," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 46(9), pages 1465-1476.
    8. Robert Turner, 2013. "Using contingent choice surveys to inform national park management," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 3(2), pages 120-138, June.
    9. Fredrik Carlsson & Mitesh Kataria, 2008. "Assessing Management Options for Weed Control with Demanders and Non-Demanders in a Choice Experiment," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 84(3), pages 517-528.
    10. Petersen, Julian & Hess, Sebastian, 2018. "Die Zukunft der Milch-Lieferbeziehungen aus Sicht deutscher Landwirte," German Journal of Agricultural Economics, Humboldt-Universitaet zu Berlin, Department for Agricultural Economics, vol. 67(2), June.
    11. Alfnes, Frode & Steine, Gro, 2005. "None-of-These Bias in Stated Choice Experiments," 2005 International Congress, August 23-27, 2005, Copenhagen, Denmark 24761, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    12. 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.
    13. Anastassiadis, Friederike & Liebe, Ulf & Musshoff, Oliver, 2012. "Finanzielle Flexibilität In Landwirtschaftlichen Investitionsentscheidungen: Ein Discrete Choice Experiment," 52nd Annual Conference, Stuttgart, Germany, September 26-28, 2012 137142, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA).
    14. 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.
    15. Siikamaki, Juha & Layton, David F., 2007. "Discrete choice survey experiments: A comparison using flexible methods," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 122-139, January.
    16. Tonsor, Glynn T. & Olynk, Nicole & Wolf, Christopher, 2009. "Consumer Preferences for Animal Welfare Attributes: The Case of Gestation Crates," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 41(3), pages 713-730, December.
    17. Weller, Priska & Elsasser, Peter, 2018. "Preferences for forest structural attributes in Germany – Evidence from a choice experiment," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 1-9.
    18. Nguyen, Ly & Gao, Zhifeng & Anderson, James L., 2022. "Regulating menu information: What do consumers care and not care about at casual and fine dining restaurants for seafood consumption?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 110(C).
    19. Punel, Aymeric & Stathopoulos, Amanda, 2017. "Modeling the acceptability of crowdsourced goods deliveries: Role of context and experience effects," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 18-38.
    20. Ladenburg, Jacob & Olsen, Søren Bøye, 2014. "Augmenting short Cheap Talk scripts with a repeated Opt-Out Reminder in Choice Experiment surveys," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 39-63.

    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:14:y:2021:i:1:d:10.1007_s40271-020-00484-x. 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.