Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
PharmacoEconomics
Published in: PharmacoEconomics 12/2013

01-12-2013 | Original Research Article

A Closer Look at Decision and Analyst Error by Including Nonlinearities in Discrete Choice Models: Implications on Willingness-to-Pay Estimates Derived from Discrete Choice Data in Healthcare

Authors: Esther W. de Bekker-Grob, John M. Rose, Michiel C. J. Bliemer

Published in: PharmacoEconomics | Issue 12/2013

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Most researchers in health economics cite random utility theory (RUT) when analysing discrete choice experiments (DCEs). Under RUT, the error term is associated with the analyst’s inability to properly capture the true choice processes of the respondent as well as the inconsistency or mistakes arising from the respondent themselves. Under such assumptions, it stands to reason that analysts should explore more complex nonlinear indirect utility functions, than currently used in healthcare, to strive for better estimates of preferences in healthcare.

Objective

To test whether complex indirect utility functions decrease error variance for models that either implicitly (i.e. the multinomial logit (MNL) model) or explicitly (i.e. entropy multinomial logit (EMNL) model) account for error variance in health(care)-related DCEs; and to determine the impact of complex indirect utility functions on willingness-to-pay (WTP) measures.

Methods

Using data from DCEs aimed at healthcare-related decisions, we empirically compared (1) complex and simple indirect utility specifications in terms of goodness of fit, (2) their impact on WTP measures, including confidence intervals (CIs) based on the Delta method, the Krinsky and Robb-procedure, and Bootstrapping, and (3) MNL and EMNL model results.

Results

Complex indirect utility functions had a better model fit than simple specifications (p < 0.05). WTP estimates were quite similar across alternative specifications. The Delta method produced the most narrow CIs. The EMNL model showed that respondents apply simplifying strategies when answering DCE questions.

Conclusion

Complex indirect utility functions reduce error arisen from researchers, which can have important implications for measures in healthcare such as the WTP, whereas EMNL provides insights into the behaviour of respondents when answering DCEs. Understanding how respondents answer DCE questions may allow researchers to construct DCEs that minimise scale differences, so that the decision error made across respondents is more homogeneous and therefore taken out as additional noise in the data. Hence, better estimates of preferences in healthcare can be provided.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Footnotes
1
We use the term indirect utility function as opposed to (direct) utility function deliberately. The original derivations of McFadden [4], which have led to the discrete choice models discussed herein, work within the framework of indirect utility functions that he identifies via Roy’s Identity. The derivation of models based on direct utility functions, whilst possible, result in an alternative modelling approach, based on the Kuhn–Tucker conditions (Kuhn and Tucker [7]).
 
2
As in most studies, in this paper, we use the broad notion of the multinomial logit model as being a combination of multinomial logit and conditional logit. The original multinomial logit model uses only individual characteristics (also called covariates, for example gender) in the indirect utility functions, while the conditional logit model as proposed by McFadden [4] considers characteristics of the alternatives (such as cost). Often, both characteristics are included in the indirect utility functions.
 
3
Equation 7 assumes constant marginal utility of income. Testing for this actually provides a test of whether the data are utility theoretic. If MUY is constant, the scatter plot of predicted utility against nominal cost should be linear [8]. We would not expect MUY to vary for costs that are small relative to disposable income.
 
Literature
1.
Louviere JJ, Lancsar E. Choice experiments in health: the good, the bad, the ugly and toward a brighter future. Health Econ Policy Law. 2009;4(Pt 4):527–46.PubMedCrossRef
2.
Witt J, Scott A, Osborne RH. Designing choice experiments with many attributes: an application to setting priorities for orthopaedic waiting lists. Health Econ. 2009;18(6):681–96.PubMedCrossRef
3.
Manski C. The structure of random utility models. Theory Decis. 1977;8:229–54.CrossRef
4.
McFadden D. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. In: Zarembka P, editor. Frontiers in econometrics. New York: Academic Press; 1974. p. 105–42.
5.
Fiebig DG, Knox S, Viney R, Haas M, Street DJ. Preferences for new and existing contraceptive products. Health Econ. 2011;20(Suppl 1):35–52.PubMedCrossRef
6.
Keane M. The generalized logit model: preliminary ideas on a research program Motorola-CenSoC meeting, Hong Kong; 2006.
7.
Kuhn HW, Tucker AW. Nonlinear programming. In: Neyman J, editor. Proceedings of the Second Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and Probability. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press; 1950. p. 481–492.
8.
Johnson FR, Mohamed AF, Ozdemir S, Marshall DA, Phillips KA. How does cost matter in health-care discrete-choice experiments? Health Econ. 2011;20(3):323–30.PubMedCrossRef
9.
Kolstad JR. How to make rural jobs more attractive to health workers: findings from a discrete choice experiment in Tanzania. Health Econ. 2011;20(2):196–211.PubMedCrossRef
10.
Mark TL, Swait J. Using stated preference and revealed preference modeling to evaluate prescribing decisions. Health Econ. 2004;13(6):563–73.PubMedCrossRef
11.
Hole AR. A comparison of approaches to estimating confidence intervals for willingness to pay measures. Health Econ. 2007;16(8):827–40.PubMedCrossRef
12.
Swait J, Adamowicz W. Choice environment, market complexity, and consumer behavior: a theoretical and empirical approach for incorporating decision complexity into models of consumer choice. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 2001;86(2):141–67.CrossRef
13.
Fiebig DG, Keane MP, Louviere JJ, Wasi N. The generalized multinomial logit model: accounting for scale and coefficient heterogeneity. Mark Sci. 2010;29(3):393–421.CrossRef
14.
Louviere JJ, Carson RT, Ainslie A, Cameron TA, DeShazo JR, Hensher D, et al. Dissecting the random component of utility. Mark Lett. 2002;13:177–93.CrossRef
15.
Louviere JJ, Eagle T. Confound it! That pesky little scale constant messes up our convenient assumptions. In: Proceedings of 2006 sawtooth software conference. Sequem: Sawtooth Software; 2006. p. 211–28.
16.
Louviere JJ, Street D, Burgess L, Wasi N, Islam T, Marley AAJ. Modeling the choices of individuals decision makers by combining efficient choice experiment designs with extra preference information. J Choice Model. 2008;1(1):128–63.CrossRef
17.
Meyer RJ, Louviere JJ. Formal choice models of informal choices: what choice modelling research can (and can’t) learn from behavioral theory. Rev Mark Res. 2007;4:3–32.CrossRef
18.
Knox SA, Viney RC, Gu Y, Hole AR, Fiebig DG, Street DJ, et al. The effect of adverse information and positive promotion on women’s preferences for prescribed contraceptive products. Soc Sci Med. 2013;83:70–80.PubMedCrossRef
19.
Ryan M, Gerard K. Using discrete choice experiments to value health care programmes: current practice and future research reflections. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2003;2(1):55–64.PubMed
20.
de Bekker-Grob EW, Ryan M, Gerard K. Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature. Health Econ. 2012;21(2):145–72.PubMedCrossRef
21.
Hall J, Kenny P, King M, Louviere J, Viney R, Yeoh A. Using stated preference discrete choice modelling to evaluate the introduction of varicella vaccination. Health Econ. 2002;11(5):457–65.PubMedCrossRef
22.
Maddala T, Phillips KA, Reed Johnson F. An experiment on simplifying conjoint analysis designs for measuring preferences. Health Econ. 2003;12(12):1035–47.PubMedCrossRef
23.
Ozdemir S, Mohamed AF, Johnson FR, Hauber AB. Who pays attention in stated-choice surveys? Health Econ. 2010;19(1):111–8.PubMed
24.
Ryan M, Watson V. Comparing welfare estimates from payment card contingent valuation and discrete choice experiments. Health Econ. 2009;18(4):389–401.PubMedCrossRef
25.
Telser H, Zweifel P. Measuring willingness-to-pay for risk reduction: an application of conjoint analysis. Health Econ. 2002;11(2):129–39.PubMedCrossRef
26.
Reed Johnson F, Lancsar E, Marshall D, Kilambi V, Muhlbacher A, Regier DA, et al. Constructing experimental designs for discrete-choice experiments: report of the ISPOR Conjoint Analysis Experimental Design Good Research Practices Task Force. Value Health. 2013;16(1):3–13.PubMedCrossRef
27.
Viney R, Lancsar E, Louviere J. Discrete choice experiments to measure consumer preferences for health and healthcare. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2002;2(4):319–26.PubMedCrossRef
28.
Lancsar E, Savage E. Deriving welfare measures from discrete choice experiments: inconsistency between current methods and random utility and welfare theory. Health Econ. 2004;13(9):901–7.PubMedCrossRef
29.
Dellaert BGC, Brazell JD, Louviere JJ. The effect of attribute variation on consumer choice consistency. Mark Lett. 1999;10(2):139–47.CrossRef
30.
Keller KL, Staelin R. Effects of quality and quantity of information on decision effectiveness. J Consumer Res. 1987;14(2):200–13.CrossRef
31.
de Bekker-Grob EW, Essink-Bot ML, Meerding WJ, Koes BW, Steyerberg EW. Preferences of GPs and patients for preventive osteoporosis drug treatment: a discrete-choice experiment. Pharmacoeconomics. 2009;27(3):211–9.PubMedCrossRef
32.
de Bekker-Grob EW, Essink-Bot ML, Meerding WJ, Pols HA, Koes BW, Steyerberg EW. Patients’ preferences for osteoporosis drug treatment: a discrete choice experiment. Osteoporos Int. 2008;19(7):1029–37.PubMedCrossRef
33.
de Bekker-Grob EW, Rose JM, Donkers B, Essink-Bot ML, Bangma CH, Steyerberg EW. Men’s preferences for prostate cancer screening: a discrete choice experiment. Br J Cancer. 2013;108(3):533–41.PubMedCrossRef
34.
Daly A, Hess S, de Jong G. Calculating errors for measures derived from choice modelling estimates. Transp Res Part B. 2012;46(2):333–41.CrossRef
35.
Hess S, Rose JM. Can scale and coefficient heterogeneity be separated in random coefficients models? Transportation. 2012;39(6):1225–39.CrossRef
36.
Flynn TN, Louviere JJ, Peters TJ, Coast J. Using discrete choice experiments to understand preferences for quality of life: variance-scale heterogeneity matters. Soc Sci Med. 2010;70(12):1957–65.PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
A Closer Look at Decision and Analyst Error by Including Nonlinearities in Discrete Choice Models: Implications on Willingness-to-Pay Estimates Derived from Discrete Choice Data in Healthcare
Authors
Esther W. de Bekker-Grob
John M. Rose
Michiel C. J. Bliemer
Publication date
01-12-2013
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
PharmacoEconomics / Issue 12/2013
Print ISSN: 1170-7690
Electronic ISSN: 1179-2027
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-013-0100-3

Other articles of this Issue 12/2013

PharmacoEconomics 12/2013 Go to the issue

Erratum

Erratum to: Cost–Utility Analysis of Deferiprone for the Treatment of β-Thalassaemia Patients with Chronic Iron Overload: A UK Perspective

Current Opinion

Assessing the Cost Effectiveness of Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis for HIV Prevention in the US

Practical Application

How to Include Informal Care in Economic Evaluations

Commentary

Search MEDLINE for Economic Evaluations: Tips to Translate an OVID Strategy into a PubMed One

Review Article

Vemurafenib for the Treatment of Locally Advanced or Metastatic BRAF V600 Mutation-Positive Malignant Melanoma: A NICE Single Technology Appraisal

Acknowledgement to Referees

Acknowledgments