IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/hlthec/v26y2017i6p743-752.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Preferences for ‘New’ Treatments Diminish in the Face of Ambiguity

Author

Listed:
  • Mark Harrison
  • Carlo A. Marra
  • Nick Bansback

Abstract

New products usually offer advantages over existing products, but in health care, most new drugs are ‘me‐too’, comparable in effectiveness and side effects to existing drugs, but with a more ambiguous evidence base around adverse effects. Despite this, new treatments drive increased health care spending, suggesting a preference for ‘newness’ in this setting. We explore (1) whether preferences for treatments labeled ‘new’ exist and (2) persist once the ambiguity in the evidence base reflecting newness is described. We use a Canadian general population sample (n = 2837) characterized by their innovativeness in adopting new products in normal markets. We found that innovators/early adopters (n = 173) had significant preferences for ‘newer’ treatments (B = 0.162, p = 0.038) irrespective of comparable benefits and side effects and all respondents had significant preferences for less ambiguity in benefit/side effect estimates. Notably, when ‘newness’ was combined with ambiguity, no significant preferences for new treatments were observed regardless of respondent innovativeness. We conclude that preferences for new products exist for some people in health care markets but disappear when the implication of ambiguity in the evidence base for new treatments is communicated. Physicians should avoid describing treatments as ‘new’ or be mindful to qualify the implications of ‘new’ treatments in terms of evidence ambiguity. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Suggested Citation

  • Mark Harrison & Carlo A. Marra & Nick Bansback, 2017. "Preferences for ‘New’ Treatments Diminish in the Face of Ambiguity," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(6), pages 743-752, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:hlthec:v:26:y:2017:i:6:p:743-752
    DOI: 10.1002/hec.3353
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.3353
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/hec.3353?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Joanna Coast & Hareth Al‐Janabi & Eileen J. Sutton & Susan A. Horrocks & A. Jane Vosper & Dawn R. Swancutt & Terry N. Flynn, 2012. "Using qualitative methods for attribute development for discrete choice experiments: issues and recommendations," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(6), pages 730-741, June.
    2. Paul K. J. Han & William M. P. Klein & Thomas C. Lehman & Holly Massett & Simon C. Lee & Andrew N. Freedman, 2009. "Laypersons' Responses to the Communication of Uncertainty Regarding Cancer Risk Estimates," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 29(3), pages 391-403, May.
    3. Scott, Anthony, 2002. "Identifying and analysing dominant preferences in discrete choice experiments: An application in health care," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 23(3), pages 383-398, June.
    4. DeShazo, J. R. & Fermo, German, 2002. "Designing Choice Sets for Stated Preference Methods: The Effects of Complexity on Choice Consistency," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 44(1), pages 123-143, July.
    5. Andrew J Barnes & Yaniv Hanoch & Melissa Martynenko & Stacey Wood & Thomas Rice & Alex D Federman, 2013. "Physician Trainees’ Decision Making and Information Processing: Choice Size and Medicare Part D," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(10), pages 1-1, October.
    6. Marilyn M. Schapira & Ann B. Nattinger & Colleen A. McHorney, 2001. "Frequency or Probability? A Qualitative Study of Risk Communication Formats Used in Health Care," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 21(6), pages 459-467, 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. Carlsen, Benedicte & Hole, Arne Risa & Kolstad, Julie Riise & Norheim, Ole Frithjof, 2012. "When you can’t have the cake and eat it too," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 75(11), pages 1964-1973.
    2. Hoyos, David, 2010. "The state of the art of environmental valuation with discrete choice experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(8), pages 1595-1603, June.
    3. Mandy Ryan & Nicolas Krucien & Frouke Hermens, 2018. "The eyes have it: Using eye tracking to inform information processing strategies in multi‐attributes choices," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(4), pages 709-721, April.
    4. Mickael Bech & Trine Kjaer & Jørgen Lauridsen, 2011. "Does the number of choice sets matter? Results from a web survey applying a discrete choice experiment," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(3), pages 273-286, March.
    5. Peyron, Christine & Pélissier, Aurore & Béjean, Sophie, 2018. "Preference heterogeneity with respect to whole genome sequencing. A discrete choice experiment among parents of children with rare genetic diseases," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 214(C), pages 125-132.
    6. 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).
    7. Rossella Berni & Fabrizia Mealli, 2013. "Mode choice analysis of mobility in Florence. A choice experiment," Studi e approfondimenti 328, Istituto Regionale per la Programmazione Economica della Toscana.
    8. Hoyos Ramos, David, 2010. "Using discrete choice experiments for environmental valuation," BILTOKI 1134-8984, Universidad del País Vasco - Departamento de Economía Aplicada III (Econometría y Estadística).
    9. Que, Sisi & Awuah-Offei, Kwame & Weidner, Nathan & Wang, Yumin, 2017. "Discrete choice experiment validation: A resource project case study," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 22(C), pages 39-50.
    10. Toshio Fujimi & Masahide Watanabe & Hirokazu Tatano, 2021. "Public trust, perceived accuracy, perceived likelihood, and concern on multi-model climate projections communicated with different formats," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 26(5), pages 1-20, June.
    11. Menyeh, Bridget Okyerebea, 2021. "Financing electricity access in Africa: A choice experiment study of household investor preferences for renewable energy investments in Ghana," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 146(C).
    12. KESSELS, Roselinde & BRADLEY, Jones & GOOS, Peter, 2012. "A comparison of partial profile designs for discrete choice experiments with an application in software development," Working Papers 2012004, University of Antwerp, Faculty of Business and Economics.
    13. Carissa Bonner & Lyndal J. Trevena & Wolfgang Gaissmaier & Paul K. J. Han & Yasmina Okan & Elissa Ozanne & Ellen Peters & Daniëlle Timmermans & Brian J. Zikmund-Fisher, 2021. "Current Best Practice for Presenting Probabilities in Patient Decision Aids: Fundamental Principles," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 41(7), pages 821-833, October.
    14. Nikita Arora & Matthew Quaife & Kara Hanson & Mylene Lagarde & Dorka Woldesenbet & Abiy Seifu & Romain Crastes dit Sourd, 2022. "Discrete choice analysis of health worker job preferences in Ethiopia: Separating attribute non‐attendance from taste heterogeneity," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(5), pages 806-819, May.
    15. Mamine, Fateh & Fares, M'hand & Minviel, Jean Joseph, 2020. "Contract Design for Adoption of Agrienvironmental Practices: A Meta-analysis of Discrete Choice Experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    16. Jensen, Anne Kejser, 2019. "A Structured Approach to Attribute Selection in Economic Valuation Studies: Using Q-methodology," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 166(C), pages 1-1.
    17. Harry Telser & Karolin Becker & Peter Zweifel, 2008. "Validity and Reliability of Willingness-to-Pay Estimates," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 1(4), pages 283-298, October.
    18. 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.
    19. Massimo Florio & Francesco Giffoni & Gelsomina Catalano, 2020. "Should governments fund basic science? Evidence from a willingness-to-pay experiment in five universities," Journal of Economic Policy Reform, Taylor and Francis Journals, vol. 23(1), pages 16-33, 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:wly:hlthec:v:26:y:2017:i:6:p:743-752. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jhome/5749 .

    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.