IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/patien/v15y2022i4d10.1007_s40271-021-00563-7.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How Do People with Experience of Infertility Value Different Aspects of Assistive Reproductive Therapy? Results from a Multi-Country Discrete Choice Experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Chris Skedgel

    (Office of Health Economics)

  • Eleanor Ralphs

    (IQVIA)

  • Elaine Finn

    (IQVIA)

  • Marie Markert

    (Ferring Pharmaceuticals)

  • Carl Samuelsen

    (Ferring Pharmaceuticals)

  • Jennifer A. Whitty

    (University of East Anglia)

Abstract

Objectives Assistive reproductive therapies can help those who have difficulty conceiving but different forms of assistive reproductive therapies are associated with different treatment characteristics. We undertook a large, multinational discrete choice experiment to understand patient preferences for assistive reproductive therapies. Methods We administered an online discrete choice experiment with persons who had experience with subfertility or assistive reproductive therapies in the USA, UK, the Nordic region (Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland), Spain, and China. Attributes encouraged trade-offs between effectiveness, risk of adverse effects, treatment (dis)comfort, (in)convenience, cost per cycle and shared decision making. We used multinomial logit and mixed-logit models to estimate preferences and attribute importance by country/region, and estimated willingness to pay for changes in attribute levels. Results A total of 7565 respondents participated. Mixed logit had a better fit than multinomial logit across all samples. Preferences moved in expected directions across all samples, but the relative importance of attributes differed between countries. Willingness to pay was greatest for improvements in effectiveness and a greater degree of shared decision making, and we observe a substantial ‘option value’ independent of treatment characteristics. Unexpectedly, preferences over cost were insignificant in the Chinese sample, limiting the use of willingness to pay in this sample. Conclusions Respondents balanced concerns for effectiveness with other considerations, including the cost and (dis)comfort of treatment, and the degree of shared decision making, but there is also substantial option value independent of treatment characteristics, demonstrating value of assistive reproductive therapies to individuals with experience of subfertility. We hypothesise that price insensitivity in the Chinese sample may reflect a degree of social desirability bias.

Suggested Citation

  • Chris Skedgel & Eleanor Ralphs & Elaine Finn & Marie Markert & Carl Samuelsen & Jennifer A. Whitty, 2022. "How Do People with Experience of Infertility Value Different Aspects of Assistive Reproductive Therapy? Results from a Multi-Country Discrete Choice Experiment," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 15(4), pages 459-472, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:patien:v:15:y:2022:i:4:d:10.1007_s40271-021-00563-7
    DOI: 10.1007/s40271-021-00563-7
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40271-021-00563-7
    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/s40271-021-00563-7?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. 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.
    2. Emily Lancsar & Jordan Louviere, 2006. "Deleting ‘irrational’ responses from discrete choice experiments: a case of investigating or imposing preferences?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(8), pages 797-811, August.
    3. Lopez-Becerra, E.I. & Alcon, F., 2021. "Social desirability bias in the environmental economic valuation: An inferred valuation approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).
    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. Rulleau, Bénédicte & Dachary-Bernard, Jeanne, 2012. "Preferences, rational choices and economic valuation: Some empirical tests," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 198-206.
    4. Emily Lancsar & Denzil G. Fiebig & Arne Risa Hole, 2017. "Discrete Choice Experiments: A Guide to Model Specification, Estimation and Software," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 35(7), pages 697-716, July.
    5. 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.
    6. Heather Gelhorn & Melissa M. Ross & Anuraag R. Kansal & Eric T. Fung & Michael V. Seiden & Nicolas Krucien & Karen C. Chung, 2023. "Patient Preferences for Multi-Cancer Early Detection (MCED) Screening Tests," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 16(1), pages 43-56, January.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. Jianhua Wang & Jiaye Ge & Yuting Ma, 2018. "Urban Chinese Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Pork with Certified Labels: A Discrete Choice Experiment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-14, February.
    10. Scaccia, Luisa & Marcucci, Edoardo & Gatta, Valerio, 2023. "Prediction and confidence intervals of willingness-to-pay for mixed logit models," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 54-78.
    11. Schipmann, Christin & Qaim, Matin, 2011. "Supply chain differentiation, contract agriculture, and farmers’ marketing preferences: The case of sweet pepper in Thailand," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(5), pages 667-677.
    12. Gyrd-Hansen, Dorte & Kjær, Trine & Nielsen, Jytte Seested, 2016. "The value of mortality risk reductions. Pure altruism - a confounder?," DaCHE discussion papers 2016:5, University of Southern Denmark, Dache - Danish Centre for Health Economics.
    13. 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.
    14. 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.
    15. Ortega, David L. & Wang, H. Holly & Wu, Laping & Olynk, Nicole J., 2011. "Modeling heterogeneity in consumer preferences for select food safety attributes in China," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 318-324, April.
    16. Chen, Xianwen & Alfnes, Frode & Rickertsen, Kyrre, 2014. "Consumer Preferences, Ecolabels, and the Effects of Negative Environmental Information," 2014 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2014, Minneapolis, Minnesota 168094, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    17. Schipmann, Christin & Qaim, Matin, 2011. "Supply chain differentiation, contract agriculture, and farmers’ marketing preferences: the case of sweet pepper in Thailand," GlobalFood Discussion Papers 108349, Georg-August-Universitaet Goettingen, GlobalFood, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development.
    18. Ericka Costa & Dario Montemurro & Diego Giuliani, 2019. "Consumers’ willingness to pay for green cars: a discrete choice analysis in Italy," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 21(5), pages 2425-2442, October.
    19. Brosig, Jeannette & Heinrich, Timo, 2011. "Reputation and Mechanism Choice in Procurement Auctions – An Experiment," Ruhr Economic Papers 254, RWI - Leibniz-Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung, Ruhr-University Bochum, TU Dortmund University, University of Duisburg-Essen.
    20. Sardaro, Ruggiero & La Sala, Piermichele & De Pascale, Gianluigi & Faccilongo, Nicola, 2021. "The conservation of cultural heritage in rural areas: Stakeholder preferences regarding historical rural buildings in Apulia, southern Italy," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).

    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:15:y:2022:i:4:d:10.1007_s40271-021-00563-7. 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.