Skip to main content
Top
Published in: The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research 2/2015

01-04-2015 | Practical Application

Constant-Sum Paired Comparisons for Eliciting Stated Preferences: A Tutorial

Authors: Chris Skedgel, Dean A. Regier

Published in: The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research | Issue 2/2015

Login to get access

Abstract

There is growing recognition of the importance of formally including public preferences and values in societal decision-making processes. Constant-sum paired comparison (CSPC), sometimes known as a ‘budget pie’ task, is a stated preference method than can be used to elicit and measure these preferences and values. It requires respondents to allocate resources between two alternatives, and the relative allocation of this resource is assumed to reflect the importance or priority that respondents attach to the attribute levels in each alternative. CSPC is useful in addressing questions over preferences for the distribution of resources, and allows for an explicit linkage of budget constraints, opportunity costs, outcomes and group characteristics. A key property of CSPC is the ability to allocate some resources to the less preferred alternative, forcing respondents to reflect on the relative value of both alternatives, and possibly giving it an advantage in contexts such as healthcare where respondents may find it ethically difficult or objectionable to make all-or-nothing allocations. This tutorial will outline the theory underlying CSPC, and will work through a detailed example of administering and interpreting a CSPC elicitation, including defining attributes and levels, constructing experimental design, task presentation, and analysis and interpretation.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Footnotes
1
CSPC asks respondents to allocate a quantity between two alternatives, and is similar to constant-sum scaling (CSS), which asks respondents to allocate a quantity between different attributes within a single alternative. Both CSPC and CSS are sometimes referred to as ‘budget pie’ tasks, but as there are fundamental differences between the two formats, this term will be avoided here.
 
Literature
1.
go back to reference Broqvist M, Garpenby P. To accept, or not to accept, that is the question: citizen reactions to rationing. Health Expect. 2014;17:82–92.CrossRefPubMed Broqvist M, Garpenby P. To accept, or not to accept, that is the question: citizen reactions to rationing. Health Expect. 2014;17:82–92.CrossRefPubMed
2.
3.
go back to reference Mullen PM. Public involvement in health care priority setting: an overview of methods for eliciting values. Health Expect. 1999;2:222–34.CrossRefPubMed Mullen PM. Public involvement in health care priority setting: an overview of methods for eliciting values. Health Expect. 1999;2:222–34.CrossRefPubMed
4.
go back to reference Whitty JA, Lancsar E, Rixon K, Golenko X, Ratcliffe J. A systematic review of stated preference studies reporting public preferences for healthcare priority setting. Patient. Epub 19 May 2014. Whitty JA, Lancsar E, Rixon K, Golenko X, Ratcliffe J. A systematic review of stated preference studies reporting public preferences for healthcare priority setting. Patient. Epub 19 May 2014.
5.
go back to reference Schwappach DL. Does it matter who you are or what you gain? An experimental study of preferences for resource allocation. Health Econ. 2003;12:255–67.CrossRefPubMed Schwappach DL. Does it matter who you are or what you gain? An experimental study of preferences for resource allocation. Health Econ. 2003;12:255–67.CrossRefPubMed
6.
go back to reference Hensher DA, Greene WH, Rose JM. Applied choice analysis: a primer. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2005.CrossRef Hensher DA, Greene WH, Rose JM. Applied choice analysis: a primer. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2005.CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Carson RT, Louviere JJ. A common nomenclature for stated preference elicitation approaches. Environ Resour Econ. 2011;49:539–59.CrossRef Carson RT, Louviere JJ. A common nomenclature for stated preference elicitation approaches. Environ Resour Econ. 2011;49:539–59.CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Louviere JJ, Hensher DA, Swait JD. Conjoint preference elicitation methods in the broader context of random utility theory preference elicitation methods. In: Gustafsson A, Herrmann A, Huber F, editors. Conjoint measurement: methods and applications. Berlin: Springer; 2000. pp. 167–98. Louviere JJ, Hensher DA, Swait JD. Conjoint preference elicitation methods in the broader context of random utility theory preference elicitation methods. In: Gustafsson A, Herrmann A, Huber F, editors. Conjoint measurement: methods and applications. Berlin: Springer; 2000. pp. 167–98.
10.
go back to reference Swallow SK, Opaluch JJ, Weaver TF. Strength-of-preference indicators and an ordered-response model for ordinarily dichotomous, discrete choice data. J Environ Econ Manag. 2001;41:70–93.CrossRef Swallow SK, Opaluch JJ, Weaver TF. Strength-of-preference indicators and an ordered-response model for ordinarily dichotomous, discrete choice data. J Environ Econ Manag. 2001;41:70–93.CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Bridges JFP, Hauber AB, Marshall D, Lloyd A, Prosser LA, Regier DA, 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;14:403–13.CrossRefPubMed Bridges JFP, Hauber AB, Marshall D, Lloyd A, Prosser LA, Regier DA, 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;14:403–13.CrossRefPubMed
12.
go back to reference Reed Johnson F, Lancsar E, Marshall D, Kilambi V, Mühlbacher 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;16:3–13.CrossRefPubMed Reed Johnson F, Lancsar E, Marshall D, Kilambi V, Mühlbacher 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;16:3–13.CrossRefPubMed
13.
go back to reference Skedgel CD, Wailoo AJ, Akehurst RL. Choosing vs. allocating: discrete choice experiments and constant-sum paired comparisons for the elicitation of societal preferences. Health Expectations. Epub 12 Jun 2013. doi:10.1111/hex.12098. Skedgel CD, Wailoo AJ, Akehurst RL. Choosing vs. allocating: discrete choice experiments and constant-sum paired comparisons for the elicitation of societal preferences. Health Expectations. Epub 12 Jun 2013. doi:10.​1111/​hex.​12098.
18.
go back to reference Aizaki H. Basic functions for supporting an implementation of choice experiments in R. J Stat Softw Code Snippets. 2012;50:1–24. Aizaki H. Basic functions for supporting an implementation of choice experiments in R. J Stat Softw Code Snippets. 2012;50:1–24.
19.
go back to reference Ubel PA, Loewenstein G. Public perceptions of the importance of prognosis in allocating transplantable livers to children. Med Decis Making. 1996;16:234–41.CrossRefPubMed Ubel PA, Loewenstein G. Public perceptions of the importance of prognosis in allocating transplantable livers to children. Med Decis Making. 1996;16:234–41.CrossRefPubMed
20.
go back to reference Ratcliffe J. Public preferences for the allocation of donor liver grafts for transplantation. Health Econ. 2000;9:137–48.CrossRefPubMed Ratcliffe J. Public preferences for the allocation of donor liver grafts for transplantation. Health Econ. 2000;9:137–48.CrossRefPubMed
21.
go back to reference Chan HM, Cheung GMY, Yip AKW. Selection criteria for recipients of scarce donor livers: a public opinion survey in Hong Kong. Hong Kong Med J. 2006;12:40–6.PubMed Chan HM, Cheung GMY, Yip AKW. Selection criteria for recipients of scarce donor livers: a public opinion survey in Hong Kong. Hong Kong Med J. 2006;12:40–6.PubMed
22.
go back to reference Ryan M, Scott DA, Reeves C, Bate A, van Teijlingen ER, Russell EM, et al. Eliciting public preferences for healthcare: a systematic review of techniques. Health Technol Assess. 2001;5:1–186.CrossRefPubMed Ryan M, Scott DA, Reeves C, Bate A, van Teijlingen ER, Russell EM, et al. Eliciting public preferences for healthcare: a systematic review of techniques. Health Technol Assess. 2001;5:1–186.CrossRefPubMed
23.
go back to reference Mathews KE, Freeman ML, Desvousges WH. How and how much? Valuing environmental amenities using stated choice studies. Netherlands: Springer; 2007. pp. 111–33.CrossRef Mathews KE, Freeman ML, Desvousges WH. How and how much? Valuing environmental amenities using stated choice studies. Netherlands: Springer; 2007. pp. 111–33.CrossRef
24.
go back to reference Baron J, Greene J. Determinants of insensitivity to quantity in valuation of public goods: contribution, warm glow, budget constraints, availability, and prominence. J Exp Psychol Appl. 1996;2:107–25.CrossRef Baron J, Greene J. Determinants of insensitivity to quantity in valuation of public goods: contribution, warm glow, budget constraints, availability, and prominence. J Exp Psychol Appl. 1996;2:107–25.CrossRef
25.
go back to reference Fischer GW, Carmon Z, Ariely D, Zauberman G. Goal-based construction of preferences: task goals and the prominence effect. Manage Sci. 1999;45:1057–75.CrossRef Fischer GW, Carmon Z, Ariely D, Zauberman G. Goal-based construction of preferences: task goals and the prominence effect. Manage Sci. 1999;45:1057–75.CrossRef
26.
go back to reference Linley WG, Hughes DA. Societal views on NICE, cancer drugs fund and value-based pricing criteria for prioritising medicines: a cross-sectional survey of 4118 adults in Great Britain. Health Econ. 2013;22(8):948–64.CrossRefPubMed Linley WG, Hughes DA. Societal views on NICE, cancer drugs fund and value-based pricing criteria for prioritising medicines: a cross-sectional survey of 4118 adults in Great Britain. Health Econ. 2013;22(8):948–64.CrossRefPubMed
27.
go back to reference Carlsson F, Martinsson P. Design techniques for stated preference methods in health economics. Health Econ. 2003;12:281–94.CrossRefPubMed Carlsson F, Martinsson P. Design techniques for stated preference methods in health economics. Health Econ. 2003;12:281–94.CrossRefPubMed
28.
go back to reference Desser AS, Gyrd-Hansen D, Olsen JA, Grepperud S, Kristiansen IS. Societal views on orphan drugs: cross sectional survey of Norwegians aged 40 to 67. BMJ. 2010;341:c4715.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed Desser AS, Gyrd-Hansen D, Olsen JA, Grepperud S, Kristiansen IS. Societal views on orphan drugs: cross sectional survey of Norwegians aged 40 to 67. BMJ. 2010;341:c4715.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed
29.
go back to reference Long J. Regression models for categorical and limited dependent variables. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 1997. Long J. Regression models for categorical and limited dependent variables. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 1997.
30.
go back to reference Wooldridge JM. Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data. 2nd ed. Cambridge: MIT Press; 2010. Wooldridge JM. Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data. 2nd ed. Cambridge: MIT Press; 2010.
31.
go back to reference Croissant Y, Millo G. Panel data econometrics in R: the plm package. J Stat Softw. 2008;27:1–43. Croissant Y, Millo G. Panel data econometrics in R: the plm package. J Stat Softw. 2008;27:1–43.
32.
go back to reference Greene WH. Econometric analysis. 7th ed. Boston: Prentice Hall; 2012. Greene WH. Econometric analysis. 7th ed. Boston: Prentice Hall; 2012.
33.
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;64:1738–53.CrossRefPubMed Lancsar E, Louviere J, Flynn T. Several methods to investigate relative attribute impact in stated preference experiments. Soc Sci Med. 2007;64:1738–53.CrossRefPubMed
34.
go back to reference Lancsar E, Louviere J. Deleting, “irrational” responses from discrete choice experiments: a case of investigating or imposing preferences? Health Econ. 2006;15:797–811.CrossRefPubMed Lancsar E, Louviere J. Deleting, “irrational” responses from discrete choice experiments: a case of investigating or imposing preferences? Health Econ. 2006;15:797–811.CrossRefPubMed
35.
go back to reference Scott A. Identifying and analysing dominant preferences in discrete choice experiments: an application in health care. J Econ Psychol. 2002;23:383–98.CrossRef Scott A. Identifying and analysing dominant preferences in discrete choice experiments: an application in health care. J Econ Psychol. 2002;23:383–98.CrossRef
36.
go back to reference Bartels DM, Medin DL. Are morally motivated decision makers insensitive to the consequences of their choices? Psychol Sci. 2007;18:24–8.CrossRefPubMed Bartels DM, Medin DL. Are morally motivated decision makers insensitive to the consequences of their choices? Psychol Sci. 2007;18:24–8.CrossRefPubMed
37.
go back to reference Schwappach DL, Strasmann TJ. “Quick and dirty numbers”? The reliability of a stated-preference technique for the measurement of preferences for resource allocation. J Health Econ. 2006;25:432–48.CrossRefPubMed Schwappach DL, Strasmann TJ. “Quick and dirty numbers”? The reliability of a stated-preference technique for the measurement of preferences for resource allocation. J Health Econ. 2006;25:432–48.CrossRefPubMed
38.
go back to reference Green C. On the societal value of health care: what do we know about the person trade-off technique? Health Econ. 2001;10:233–43.CrossRefPubMed Green C. On the societal value of health care: what do we know about the person trade-off technique? Health Econ. 2001;10:233–43.CrossRefPubMed
39.
go back to reference Damschroder LJ, Roberts TR, Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Ubel PA. Why people refuse to make tradeoffs in person tradeoff elicitations: a matter of perspective? Med Decis Making. 2007;27:266–80.CrossRefPubMed Damschroder LJ, Roberts TR, Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Ubel PA. Why people refuse to make tradeoffs in person tradeoff elicitations: a matter of perspective? Med Decis Making. 2007;27:266–80.CrossRefPubMed
40.
go back to reference Nord E. The person-trade-off approach to valuing health-care programs. Med Decis Making. 1995;15:201–8.CrossRefPubMed Nord E. The person-trade-off approach to valuing health-care programs. Med Decis Making. 1995;15:201–8.CrossRefPubMed
41.
go back to reference Rossi PE, Allenby GM, McCulloch R. Bayesian statistics and marketing. 1st ed. Hoboken: Wiley; 2005.CrossRef Rossi PE, Allenby GM, McCulloch R. Bayesian statistics and marketing. 1st ed. Hoboken: Wiley; 2005.CrossRef
42.
go back to reference Ryan M, Netten A, Skatun D, Smith P. Using discrete choice experiments to estimate a preference-based measure of outcome: an application to social care for older people. J Health Econ. 2006;25:927–44.CrossRefPubMed Ryan M, Netten A, Skatun D, Smith P. Using discrete choice experiments to estimate a preference-based measure of outcome: an application to social care for older people. J Health Econ. 2006;25:927–44.CrossRefPubMed
43.
go back to reference Bridges JFP, Kinter ET, Schmeding A, Rudolph I, Mühlbacher A. Can patients diagnosed with schizophrenia complete choice-based conjoint analysis tasks? Patient Patient Cent Outcome Res. 2011;4:267–75.CrossRef Bridges JFP, Kinter ET, Schmeding A, Rudolph I, Mühlbacher A. Can patients diagnosed with schizophrenia complete choice-based conjoint analysis tasks? Patient Patient Cent Outcome Res. 2011;4:267–75.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Constant-Sum Paired Comparisons for Eliciting Stated Preferences: A Tutorial
Authors
Chris Skedgel
Dean A. Regier
Publication date
01-04-2015
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research / Issue 2/2015
Print ISSN: 1178-1653
Electronic ISSN: 1178-1661
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-014-0077-9

Other articles of this Issue 2/2015

The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research 2/2015 Go to the issue
Live Webinar | 27-06-2024 | 18:00 (CEST)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Live: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)

WHO estimates that half of all patients worldwide are non-adherent to their prescribed medication. The consequences of poor adherence can be catastrophic, on both the individual and population level.

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.

Prof. Kevin Dolgin
Prof. Florian Limbourg
Prof. Anoop Chauhan
Developed by: Springer Medicine
Obesity Clinical Trial Summary

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.

Developed by: Springer Medicine