Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Applied Health Economics and Health Policy 3/2016

01-06-2016 | Practical Application

Choice Experiments to Quantify Preferences for Health and Healthcare: State of the Practice

Authors: Axel Mühlbacher, F. Reed Johnson

Published in: Applied Health Economics and Health Policy | Issue 3/2016

Login to get access

Abstract

Stated-preference methods increasingly are used to quantify preferences in health economics, health technology assessment, benefit-risk analysis and health services research. The objective of stated-preference studies is to acquire information about trade-off preferences among treatment outcomes, prioritization of clinical decision criteria, likely uptake or adherence to healthcare products and acceptability of healthcare services or policies. A widely accepted approach to eliciting preferences is discrete-choice experiments. Patient, physician, insurant or general-public respondents choose among constructed, experimentally controlled alternatives described by decision-relevant features or attributes. Attributes can represent complete health states, sets of treatment outcomes or characteristics of a healthcare system. The observed pattern of choice reveals how different respondents or groups of respondents implicitly weigh, value and assess different characteristics of treatments, products or services. An important advantage of choice experiments is their foundation in microeconomic utility theory. This conceptual framework provides tests of internal validity, guidance for statistical analysis of latent preference structures, and testable behavioural hypotheses. Choice experiments require expertise in survey-research methods, random-utility theory, experimental design and advanced statistical analysis. This paper should be understood as an introduction to setting up a basic experiment rather than an exhaustive critique of the latest findings and procedures. Where appropriate, we have identified topics of active research where a broad consensus has not yet been established.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Lancsar E, Louviere J. Conducting discrete choice experiments to inform healthcare decision making. Pharmacoeconomics. 2008;26(8):661–77.CrossRefPubMed Lancsar E, Louviere J. Conducting discrete choice experiments to inform healthcare decision making. Pharmacoeconomics. 2008;26(8):661–77.CrossRefPubMed
2.
go back to reference Johnson FR, Hauber AB. Quantifying patient benefit-risk tradeoff preferences: a brief introduction. Research Triangle Park: RTI Health Solutions; 2008. Johnson FR, Hauber AB. Quantifying patient benefit-risk tradeoff preferences: a brief introduction. Research Triangle Park: RTI Health Solutions; 2008.
4.
go back to reference Mühlbacher AC, et al. Preferences for treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD): a discrete choice experiment. BMC Health Serv Res. 2009;9(1):149.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Mühlbacher AC, et al. Preferences for treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD): a discrete choice experiment. BMC Health Serv Res. 2009;9(1):149.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
6.
go back to reference Drummond MF, et al. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. New York: Oxford University Press; 2005. Drummond MF, et al. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. New York: Oxford University Press; 2005.
7.
go back to reference Bridges J, et al. Patient preference methods—a patient centered evaluation paradigm. ISPOR Connect. 2007;13(6):4–7. Bridges J, et al. Patient preference methods—a patient centered evaluation paradigm. ISPOR Connect. 2007;13(6):4–7.
8.
go back to reference Johnson FR, Backhouse M. Eliciting stated preferences for health-technology adoption criteria using paired comparisons and recommendation judgments. Value Health. 2006;9(5):303–11.CrossRefPubMed Johnson FR, Backhouse M. Eliciting stated preferences for health-technology adoption criteria using paired comparisons and recommendation judgments. Value Health. 2006;9(5):303–11.CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference Johnson FR, Banzhaf MR, Desvousges WH. Willingness to pay for improved respiratory and cardiovascular health: a multiple-format, stated-preference approach. Health Econ. 2000;9(4):295–317.CrossRefPubMed Johnson FR, Banzhaf MR, Desvousges WH. Willingness to pay for improved respiratory and cardiovascular health: a multiple-format, stated-preference approach. Health Econ. 2000;9(4):295–317.CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference Johnson FR, et al. Are chemotherapy patients’ HRQoL importance weights consistent with linear scoring rules? A stated-choice approach. Qual Life Res. 2006;15(2):285–98.CrossRefPubMed Johnson FR, et al. Are chemotherapy patients’ HRQoL importance weights consistent with linear scoring rules? A stated-choice approach. Qual Life Res. 2006;15(2):285–98.CrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference Roux L, et al. Valuing the benefits of weight loss programs: an application of the discrete choice experiment. Obes Res. 2004;12(8):1342–51.CrossRefPubMed Roux L, et al. Valuing the benefits of weight loss programs: an application of the discrete choice experiment. Obes Res. 2004;12(8):1342–51.CrossRefPubMed
12.
go back to reference Mühlbacher AC, Nübling M. Analysis of physicians’ perspectives versus patients’ preferences: direct assessment and discrete choice experiments in the therapy of multiple myeloma. Eur J Health Econ. 2011;12(3):193–203.CrossRefPubMed Mühlbacher AC, Nübling M. Analysis of physicians’ perspectives versus patients’ preferences: direct assessment and discrete choice experiments in the therapy of multiple myeloma. Eur J Health Econ. 2011;12(3):193–203.CrossRefPubMed
13.
go back to reference Lancsar E, et al. Deriving distributional weights for QALYs through discrete choice experiments. J Health Econ. 2011;30(2):466–78.CrossRefPubMed Lancsar E, et al. Deriving distributional weights for QALYs through discrete choice experiments. J Health Econ. 2011;30(2):466–78.CrossRefPubMed
14.
go back to reference Flynn TN. Using conjoint analysis and choice experiments to estimate QALY values. Pharmacoeconomics. 2010;28(9):711–22.CrossRefPubMed Flynn TN. Using conjoint analysis and choice experiments to estimate QALY values. Pharmacoeconomics. 2010;28(9):711–22.CrossRefPubMed
15.
go back to reference European Medicines Agency (EMA) Benefit-risk methodology project. Work package 4 report: benefit-risk tools and processes; 2012. European Medicines Agency (EMA) Benefit-risk methodology project. Work package 4 report: benefit-risk tools and processes; 2012.
16.
go back to reference Ho MP, et al. Incorporating patient-preference evidence into regulatory decision making. Surg Endosc. 2015;29(10):2984–93.CrossRefPubMed Ho MP, et al. Incorporating patient-preference evidence into regulatory decision making. Surg Endosc. 2015;29(10):2984–93.CrossRefPubMed
17.
go back to reference US Food and Drug Administration Center for Devices and Radiological Health and Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research. Patient preference information—submission, review in PMAs, HDE applications, and de novo requests, and inclusion in device labeling: draft guidance for industry, food and drug administration staff, and other stakeholders; 2015. US Food and Drug Administration Center for Devices and Radiological Health and Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research. Patient preference information—submission, review in PMAs, HDE applications, and de novo requests, and inclusion in device labeling: draft guidance for industry, food and drug administration staff, and other stakeholders; 2015.
18.
go back to reference Mühlbacher AC. Patient-centric HTA: different strokes for different folks. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2015;15(4):591–7.CrossRefPubMed Mühlbacher AC. Patient-centric HTA: different strokes for different folks. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2015;15(4):591–7.CrossRefPubMed
19.
go back to reference Merino-Castelló A. Demand for pharmaceutical drugs: a choice modelling experiment. UPF Economics and Business Working Paper. 2003(704). Merino-Castelló A. Demand for pharmaceutical drugs: a choice modelling experiment. UPF Economics and Business Working Paper. 2003(704).
20.
go back to reference Bridges JFP, et al. Conjoint analysis applications in health—a checklist: a report of the ISPOR Good Research Practices for Conjoint Analysis Task Force. Value Health. 2011;14(4):403–13.CrossRefPubMed Bridges JFP, et al. Conjoint analysis applications in health—a checklist: a report of the ISPOR Good Research Practices for Conjoint Analysis Task Force. Value Health. 2011;14(4):403–13.CrossRefPubMed
21.
go back to reference Mühlbacher A, Bethge S, Tockhorn A. Präferenzmessung im gesundheitswesen: grundlagen von discrete-choice-experimenten. Gesundh Ökon Qual Manag. 2013;18(4):159–72.CrossRef Mühlbacher A, Bethge S, Tockhorn A. Präferenzmessung im gesundheitswesen: grundlagen von discrete-choice-experimenten. Gesundh Ökon Qual Manag. 2013;18(4):159–72.CrossRef
22.
go back to reference McFadden D. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. Zarembka. 1974;1974:105–42. McFadden D. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. Zarembka. 1974;1974:105–42.
23.
go back to reference Lancaster KJ. A new approach to consumer theory. J Political Econ. 1966;74(2):132–57.CrossRef Lancaster KJ. A new approach to consumer theory. J Political Econ. 1966;74(2):132–57.CrossRef
24.
go back to reference Lancaster K. Consumer demand: a new approach. New York: Columbia University Press; 1971. Lancaster K. Consumer demand: a new approach. New York: Columbia University Press; 1971.
25.
26.
go back to reference Marschak J. Binary-choice constraints and random utility indicators. In: Proceedings of a symposium on mathematical methods in the social sciences. 1960. Marschak J. Binary-choice constraints and random utility indicators. In: Proceedings of a symposium on mathematical methods in the social sciences. 1960.
27.
go back to reference Luce RD. Individual choice behavior a theoretical analysis, vol. 115. New York: John Wiley and sons; 1959. Luce RD. Individual choice behavior a theoretical analysis, vol. 115. New York: John Wiley and sons; 1959.
28.
go back to reference Gerard K, Shanahan M, Louviere J. Using stated preference discrete choice modelling to inform health care decision-making: a pilot study of breast screening participation. Appl Econ. 2003;35(9):1073–85.CrossRef Gerard K, Shanahan M, Louviere J. Using stated preference discrete choice modelling to inform health care decision-making: a pilot study of breast screening participation. Appl Econ. 2003;35(9):1073–85.CrossRef
29.
go back to reference 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.CrossRefPubMed 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.CrossRefPubMed
30.
go back to reference Kjær T. A review of the discrete choice experiment-with emphasis on its application in health care. Health Economics Papers; 2005. Kjær T. A review of the discrete choice experiment-with emphasis on its application in health care. Health Economics Papers; 2005.
31.
go back to reference Louviere JJ, Hensher DA, Swait JD. Stated choice methods: analysis and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2000.CrossRef Louviere JJ, Hensher DA, Swait JD. Stated choice methods: analysis and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2000.CrossRef
32.
go back to reference Telser H. Nutzenmessung im gesundheitswesen: die methode der discrete-choice-experimente, ed. S.v. Forschungsergebnisse, vol. 78. Hamburg: Kovač; 2002. Telser H. Nutzenmessung im gesundheitswesen: die methode der discrete-choice-experimente, ed. S.v. Forschungsergebnisse, vol. 78. Hamburg: Kovač; 2002.
33.
go back to reference Telser H, Becker K, Zweifel P. Validity and reliability of willingness-to-pay estimates. Patient Patient Cent Outcomes Res. 2008;1(4):283–98.CrossRef Telser H, Becker K, Zweifel P. Validity and reliability of willingness-to-pay estimates. Patient Patient Cent Outcomes Res. 2008;1(4):283–98.CrossRef
34.
35.
go back to reference Ben-Akiva ME, Lerman SR. Discrete choice analysis: theory and application to travel demand, vol. 9. Cambridge: MIT press; 1985. Ben-Akiva ME, Lerman SR. Discrete choice analysis: theory and application to travel demand, vol. 9. Cambridge: MIT press; 1985.
36.
go back to reference Train KE. Discrete choice methods with simulation. 2. ed. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2009.CrossRef Train KE. Discrete choice methods with simulation. 2. ed. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2009.CrossRef
37.
go back to reference Hensher DA, Rose JM, Greene WH. Applied choice analysis: a primer. Cambridge University Press; 2005. Hensher DA, Rose JM, Greene WH. Applied choice analysis: a primer. Cambridge University Press; 2005.
38.
go back to reference Cunningham CE, et al. Modeling the bullying prevention program preferences of educators: a discrete choice conjoint experiment. J Abnorm Child Psychol. 2009;37(7):929–43.CrossRefPubMed Cunningham CE, et al. Modeling the bullying prevention program preferences of educators: a discrete choice conjoint experiment. J Abnorm Child Psychol. 2009;37(7):929–43.CrossRefPubMed
39.
go back to reference Hauber AB, et al. Benefits, risk, and uncertainty: preferences of antiretroviral-naïve African Americans for HIV treatments. AIDS Patient Care STDs. 2009;23(1):29–34.CrossRefPubMed Hauber AB, et al. Benefits, risk, and uncertainty: preferences of antiretroviral-naïve African Americans for HIV treatments. AIDS Patient Care STDs. 2009;23(1):29–34.CrossRefPubMed
40.
go back to reference Louviere JJ, Pihlens D, Carson R. Design of discrete choice experiments: a discussion of issues that matter in future applied research. J Choice Model. 2011;4(1):1–8.CrossRef Louviere JJ, Pihlens D, Carson R. Design of discrete choice experiments: a discussion of issues that matter in future applied research. J Choice Model. 2011;4(1):1–8.CrossRef
41.
go back to reference Ryan M, Gerard K, Amaya-Amaya M. Using discrete choice experiments to value health and health care, vol. 11. Dordrecht: Springer & Business Media; 2008.CrossRef Ryan M, Gerard K, Amaya-Amaya M. Using discrete choice experiments to value health and health care, vol. 11. Dordrecht: Springer & Business Media; 2008.CrossRef
42.
go back to reference Coast J, Horrocks S. Developing attributes and levels for discrete choice experiments using qualitative methods. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2007;12(1):25–30.CrossRefPubMed Coast J, Horrocks S. Developing attributes and levels for discrete choice experiments using qualitative methods. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2007;12(1):25–30.CrossRefPubMed
43.
go back to reference Simon HA. Theories of decision-making in economics and behavioral science. Am Econ Rev. 1959;49:253–83. Simon HA. Theories of decision-making in economics and behavioral science. Am Econ Rev. 1959;49:253–83.
44.
go back to reference Helm R, Steiner M. Präferenzmessung: methodengestützte entwicklung zielgruppenspezifischer produktinnovationen. Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer Verlag; 2008. Helm R, Steiner M. Präferenzmessung: methodengestützte entwicklung zielgruppenspezifischer produktinnovationen. Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer Verlag; 2008.
45.
go back to reference Street DJ, Burgess L. Some open combinatorial problems in the design of stated choice experiments. Discrete Math. 2008;308(13):2781–8.CrossRef Street DJ, Burgess L. Some open combinatorial problems in the design of stated choice experiments. Discrete Math. 2008;308(13):2781–8.CrossRef
46.
go back to reference Bunch D, Louviere J, Andersson D. A comparison of experimental design strategies for choice-based conjoint analysis with generic-attribute multinomial logit models. University of California, Davis, Graduate School of Management Working Paper; 1996. p. 11–96. Bunch D, Louviere J, Andersson D. A comparison of experimental design strategies for choice-based conjoint analysis with generic-attribute multinomial logit models. University of California, Davis, Graduate School of Management Working Paper; 1996. p. 11–96.
47.
go back to reference Software Sawtooth. The CBC system for choice-based conjoint analysis, in technical paper series, CBC—technical paper. Washington: Sawtooth Software Inc.; 2008. Software Sawtooth. The CBC system for choice-based conjoint analysis, in technical paper series, CBC—technical paper. Washington: Sawtooth Software Inc.; 2008.
48.
go back to reference 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 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
49.
go back to reference Chrzan K, Orme B. An overview and comparison of design strategies for choice-based conjoint analysis. Sawtooth software research paper series; 2000. Chrzan K, Orme B. An overview and comparison of design strategies for choice-based conjoint analysis. Sawtooth software research paper series; 2000.
50.
go back to reference Chrzan K, Elrod T. Choice-based approach for large numbers of attributes. Mark News. 1995;29(1):20. Chrzan K, Elrod T. Choice-based approach for large numbers of attributes. Mark News. 1995;29(1):20.
51.
go back to reference Zhang J, et al. Too many attributes: a test of the validity of combining discrete-choice and best–worst scaling data. J Choice Model. 2015;15:1–13.CrossRef Zhang J, et al. Too many attributes: a test of the validity of combining discrete-choice and best–worst scaling data. J Choice Model. 2015;15:1–13.CrossRef
52.
go back to reference Johnson FR, 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.CrossRef Johnson FR, 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.CrossRef
53.
go back to reference Wittink DR, Krishnamurthi L, Reibstein DJ. The effect of differences in the number of attribute levels on conjoint results. Mark Lett. 1990;1(2):113–23.CrossRef Wittink DR, Krishnamurthi L, Reibstein DJ. The effect of differences in the number of attribute levels on conjoint results. Mark Lett. 1990;1(2):113–23.CrossRef
54.
go back to reference Verlegh PW, Schifferstein HN, Wittink DR. Range and number-of-levels effects in derived and stated measures of attribute importance. Mark Lett. 2002;13(1):41–52.CrossRef Verlegh PW, Schifferstein HN, Wittink DR. Range and number-of-levels effects in derived and stated measures of attribute importance. Mark Lett. 2002;13(1):41–52.CrossRef
55.
go back to reference Poulos C, et al. Pediatricians’ preferences for infant Meningococcal vaccination. Value Health. 2015;18(1):67–77.CrossRefPubMed Poulos C, et al. Pediatricians’ preferences for infant Meningococcal vaccination. Value Health. 2015;18(1):67–77.CrossRefPubMed
56.
go back to reference Mohamed A, et al. Do patients and physicians have similar preferences for chronic hepatitis B treatment outcomes in Turkey? Flora J Infect Dis Clin Microbiol. 2012;17(1):29–38. Mohamed A, et al. Do patients and physicians have similar preferences for chronic hepatitis B treatment outcomes in Turkey? Flora J Infect Dis Clin Microbiol. 2012;17(1):29–38.
57.
go back to reference Özdemir S, Johnson FR, Hauber AB. Hypothetical bias, cheap talk, and stated willingness to pay for health care. J Health Econ. 2009;28(4):894–901.CrossRefPubMed Özdemir S, Johnson FR, Hauber AB. Hypothetical bias, cheap talk, and stated willingness to pay for health care. J Health Econ. 2009;28(4):894–901.CrossRefPubMed
58.
go back to reference Bech M, Kjaer T, Lauridsen J. Does the number of choice sets matter? Results from a web survey applying a discrete choice experiment. Health Econ. 2011;20(3):273–86.CrossRefPubMed Bech M, Kjaer T, Lauridsen J. Does the number of choice sets matter? Results from a web survey applying a discrete choice experiment. Health Econ. 2011;20(3):273–86.CrossRefPubMed
59.
go back to reference Brown DS, et al. Mothers’ preferences and willingness to pay for vaccinating daughters against human papillomavirus. Vaccine. 2010;28(7):1702–8.CrossRefPubMed Brown DS, et al. Mothers’ preferences and willingness to pay for vaccinating daughters against human papillomavirus. Vaccine. 2010;28(7):1702–8.CrossRefPubMed
60.
go back to reference Mühlbacher AC, Juhnke C. Patient preferences versus physicians’ judgement: does it make a difference in healthcare decision making? Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2013;11(3):163–80.CrossRefPubMed Mühlbacher AC, Juhnke C. Patient preferences versus physicians’ judgement: does it make a difference in healthcare decision making? Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2013;11(3):163–80.CrossRefPubMed
61.
go back to reference Muhlbacher AC, Bethge S. Reduce mortality risk above all else: a discrete-choice experiment in acute coronary syndrome patients. Pharmacoeconomics. 2015;33(1):71–81.CrossRefPubMed Muhlbacher AC, Bethge S. Reduce mortality risk above all else: a discrete-choice experiment in acute coronary syndrome patients. Pharmacoeconomics. 2015;33(1):71–81.CrossRefPubMed
62.
go back to reference ChoiceMetrics, Ngene 1.1. 1 User manual and reference guide. Sydney: ChoiceMetrics; 2012. ChoiceMetrics, Ngene 1.1. 1 User manual and reference guide. Sydney: ChoiceMetrics; 2012.
63.
go back to reference Rose JM, Bliemer MCJ. Sample size requirements for stated choice experiments. Transportation. 2013;40(5):1021–41.CrossRef Rose JM, Bliemer MCJ. Sample size requirements for stated choice experiments. Transportation. 2013;40(5):1021–41.CrossRef
64.
go back to reference Johnson RM, Orme BK. How many questions should you ask in choice-based conjoint studies. In: ART Forum Proceedings; 1996. Johnson RM, Orme BK. How many questions should you ask in choice-based conjoint studies. In: ART Forum Proceedings; 1996.
65.
go back to reference Huber J, Zwerina K. The importance of utility balance in efficient choice designs. J Mark Res. 1996;33(3):307–17.CrossRef Huber J, Zwerina K. The importance of utility balance in efficient choice designs. J Mark Res. 1996;33(3):307–17.CrossRef
66.
go back to reference Kuhfeld W. Marketing research methods in SAS. Experimental design, choice, conjoint, and graphical techniques. Cary, NC: SAS-Institute TS-722; 2005. Kuhfeld W. Marketing research methods in SAS. Experimental design, choice, conjoint, and graphical techniques. Cary, NC: SAS-Institute TS-722; 2005.
67.
go back to reference Johnson FR, Ozdemir S, Phillips KA. Effects of simplifying choice tasks on estimates of taste heterogeneity in stated-choice surveys. Soc Sci Med. 2010;70(2):183–90.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Johnson FR, Ozdemir S, Phillips KA. Effects of simplifying choice tasks on estimates of taste heterogeneity in stated-choice surveys. Soc Sci Med. 2010;70(2):183–90.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
68.
go back to reference Orme BK. Getting started with conjoint analysis. Madison: Research Publishers LLC; 2006. Orme BK. Getting started with conjoint analysis. Madison: Research Publishers LLC; 2006.
69.
70.
go back to reference Yang JC, et al. Sample size and utility-difference precision in discrete-choice experiments: a meta-simulation approach. J Choice Model. 2015;16:50–7.CrossRef Yang JC, et al. Sample size and utility-difference precision in discrete-choice experiments: a meta-simulation approach. J Choice Model. 2015;16:50–7.CrossRef
71.
go back to reference Bech M, Gyrd-Hansen D. Effects coding in discrete choice experiments. Health Econ. 2005;14(10):1079–83.CrossRefPubMed Bech M, Gyrd-Hansen D. Effects coding in discrete choice experiments. Health Econ. 2005;14(10):1079–83.CrossRefPubMed
73.
go back to reference Van Houtven G, et al. Eliciting benefit–risk preferences and probability-weighted utility using choice-format conjoint analysis. Med Decis Mak. 2011;31(3):469–80.CrossRef Van Houtven G, et al. Eliciting benefit–risk preferences and probability-weighted utility using choice-format conjoint analysis. Med Decis Mak. 2011;31(3):469–80.CrossRef
74.
go back to reference Swait J, Louviere J. The role of the scale parameter in the estimation and comparison of multinomial logit models. J Mark Res. 1993;30(3):305–14.CrossRef Swait J, Louviere J. The role of the scale parameter in the estimation and comparison of multinomial logit models. J Mark Res. 1993;30(3):305–14.CrossRef
75.
go back to reference Orme B. Including holdout choice tasks in conjoint studies. Washington: Sawtooth Software Inc.; 2015. Orme B. Including holdout choice tasks in conjoint studies. Washington: Sawtooth Software Inc.; 2015.
76.
go back to reference Lancsar E, Louviere J, Flynn T. Several methods to investigate relative attribute impact in stated preference experiments. Soc Sci Med. 2007;64(8):1738–53.CrossRefPubMed Lancsar E, Louviere J, Flynn T. Several methods to investigate relative attribute impact in stated preference experiments. Soc Sci Med. 2007;64(8):1738–53.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Choice Experiments to Quantify Preferences for Health and Healthcare: State of the Practice
Authors
Axel Mühlbacher
F. Reed Johnson
Publication date
01-06-2016
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
Applied Health Economics and Health Policy / Issue 3/2016
Print ISSN: 1175-5652
Electronic ISSN: 1179-1896
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40258-016-0232-7

Other articles of this Issue 3/2016

Applied Health Economics and Health Policy 3/2016 Go to the issue