Skip to main content
Top
Published in: The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research 4/2010

01-12-2010 | Original Research Article

Using Best-Worst Scaling Choice Experiments to Measure Public Perceptions and Preferences for Healthcare Reform in Australia

Authors: Professor Jordan J. Louviere, Terry N. Flynn

Published in: The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research | Issue 4/2010

Login to get access

Abstract

Background: One of the greatest difficulties in evaluating healthcare system reform in any country is that governments often do not clearly articulate what it is they are attempting to do. In Australia, a recent inquiry set out 15 principles to guide the reform process, but it remains unclear how the Australian public values the principles, how such values vary across the country, and, more fundamentally, if Australians understand the principles.
Objectives: To evaluate the Australian healthcare reform principles from the perspective of the Australian public, to test if such preferences are valued consistently across geographic and socioeconomic strata, and to test for the degree of understanding of the principles among the public.
Methods: We employed best-worst scaling (BWS), a stated-preference method grounded in random utility theory, to elicit public preference for 15 healthcare reform principles. The BWS tasks were incorporated into an online survey that also gathered geographic and socioeconomic information and included questions relating to the understanding of the reform principles. Respondents were a geographically diverse set of Australians who were randomized to receive one of two versions of the survey, each containing a block of 15 choice tasks. Tasks in block one contained a subset of the choice tasks containing subsets of seven principles based on a balanced incomplete block design, while tasks in block two contained tasks with eight principles defined by the complement of the former.
In each BWS task, respondents were simply asked to identify the most and least important principle. Analysis of preference was based on assigning the most valued principles a ‘1’ and the least valued principles ‘−1’, and with each item appearing eight times in each block, preferences were analyzed over a cardinal utility scale bounded by −8 and +8. Analysis was based on simple summary statistics and stratified by geographic and socioeconomic measures.
Results: A sample of 204 respondents participated in the survey (a participation rate of 85%). Quality and safety was the most important principle and a culture of reflective improvement and innovation was the least important. Public voice and community engagement was the second least important principle and was also understood by barely half the respondents.
Conclusions: This research demonstrates how random-utility-based methods can be used to provide estimates of the importance of reform principles that have known statistical properties. The BWS task used forced respondents to discriminate between the principles on offer, unlike rating scales. Researchers and practitioners in healthcare should consider using BWS tasks in preference to rating scales.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Lee JA, Soutar G, Louviere JJ. Measuring values using best-worst scaling: the LOV example. Psychol Mark 2007; 24(12): 1043–58CrossRef Lee JA, Soutar G, Louviere JJ. Measuring values using best-worst scaling: the LOV example. Psychol Mark 2007; 24(12): 1043–58CrossRef
2.
go back to reference Ben-Akiva M, Morikawa T, Shiroishi F. Analysis of the reliability of preference ranking data. J Bus Res 1991; 23: 253–68CrossRef Ben-Akiva M, Morikawa T, Shiroishi F. Analysis of the reliability of preference ranking data. J Bus Res 1991; 23: 253–68CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Finn A, Louviere JJ. Determining the appropriate response to evidence of public concern: the case of food safety. J Public Pol Mark 1992; 11(1): 12–25 Finn A, Louviere JJ. Determining the appropriate response to evidence of public concern: the case of food safety. J Public Pol Mark 1992; 11(1): 12–25
4.
go back to reference Marley AAJ, Louviere JJ. Some probabilistic models of best, worst, and best-worst choices. J Math Psychol 2005; 49:464–80CrossRef Marley AAJ, Louviere JJ. Some probabilistic models of best, worst, and best-worst choices. J Math Psychol 2005; 49:464–80CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Flynn TN. Valuing citizen and patient preferences in health: recent developments in three types of best-worst scaling. Exp Rev Pharmacoeconomics Outcomes Res 2010; 10(3): 259–67CrossRef Flynn TN. Valuing citizen and patient preferences in health: recent developments in three types of best-worst scaling. Exp Rev Pharmacoeconomics Outcomes Res 2010; 10(3): 259–67CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Flynn TN, Louviere JJ, Peters TJ, et al. Best-worst scaling: what it can do for health care research and how to do it. J Health Econ 2007; 26(1): 171–89PubMedCrossRef Flynn TN, Louviere JJ, Peters TJ, et al. Best-worst scaling: what it can do for health care research and how to do it. J Health Econ 2007; 26(1): 171–89PubMedCrossRef
7.
go back to reference Marley AAJ, Flynn TN, Louviere JJ. Probabilistic models of set-dependent and attribute-level best-worst choice. J Math Psychol 2008; 52: 281–96CrossRef Marley AAJ, Flynn TN, Louviere JJ. Probabilistic models of set-dependent and attribute-level best-worst choice. J Math Psychol 2008; 52: 281–96CrossRef
8.
go back to reference National Health and Hospitals Reform Commission. A healthier future for all Australians: final report June 2009. Barton (ACT): Commonwealth of Australia, 2009 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.health.gov.au/internet/ nhhrc/publishing.nsf/Content/nhhrc-report [Accessed 2010 Aug 25] National Health and Hospitals Reform Commission. A healthier future for all Australians: final report June 2009. Barton (ACT): Commonwealth of Australia, 2009 [online]. Available from URL: http://​www.​health.​gov.​au/​internet/​ nhhrc/publishing.nsf/Content/nhhrc-report [Accessed 2010 Aug 25]
9.
go back to reference Thurstone LL. A law of comparative judgment. Psychol Rev 1927; 34: 273–86CrossRef Thurstone LL. A law of comparative judgment. Psychol Rev 1927; 34: 273–86CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Flynn TN, Louviere JJ, Peters TJ, et al. Estimating preferences for a dermatology consultation using Best-Worst Scaling: comparison of various methods of analysis. BMC Med Res Methodol 2008; 8: 76PubMedCrossRef Flynn TN, Louviere JJ, Peters TJ, et al. Estimating preferences for a dermatology consultation using Best-Worst Scaling: comparison of various methods of analysis. BMC Med Res Methodol 2008; 8: 76PubMedCrossRef
11.
go back to reference Louviere JJ, Street DJ, Burgess L, et al. Modelling the choices of single individuals by combining efficient choice experiment designs with extra preference information. J Choice Model 2008; 1(1): 128–63 Louviere JJ, Street DJ, Burgess L, et al. Modelling the choices of single individuals by combining efficient choice experiment designs with extra preference information. J Choice Model 2008; 1(1): 128–63
12.
go back to reference pureprofile [online]. Available from URL: http://www.pure profile.com/au/en/home/welcome [Accessed 2010 Aug 30] pureprofile [online]. Available from URL: http://​www.​pure profile.com/au/en/home/welcome [Accessed 2010 Aug 30]
13.
go back to reference Louviere JJ, Woodworth G. Design and analysis of simulated consumer choice or allocation experiments: an approach based on aggregate data. J Mark Res 1983; 20: 350–67CrossRef Louviere JJ, Woodworth G. Design and analysis of simulated consumer choice or allocation experiments: an approach based on aggregate data. J Mark Res 1983; 20: 350–67CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Baumgartner H, Steenkamp J-BEM. Response styles in marketing research: a cross-national investigation. J Mark Res 2001; 38(2): 143–56CrossRef Baumgartner H, Steenkamp J-BEM. Response styles in marketing research: a cross-national investigation. J Mark Res 2001; 38(2): 143–56CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Steenkamp J-BEM, Baumgartner H. Assessing measurement invariance in cross-national consumer research. J Consum Res 1998; 25(1): 78–90CrossRef Steenkamp J-BEM, Baumgartner H. Assessing measurement invariance in cross-national consumer research. J Consum Res 1998; 25(1): 78–90CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Flynn TN, Louviere JJ, Peters TJ, et al. Using discrete choice experiments to understand preferences for quality of life: variance scale heterogeneity matters. Soc Sci Med 2010; 70(12): 1957–65PubMedCrossRef Flynn TN, Louviere JJ, Peters TJ, et al. Using discrete choice experiments to understand preferences for quality of life: variance scale heterogeneity matters. Soc Sci Med 2010; 70(12): 1957–65PubMedCrossRef
17.
go back to reference Fiebig DG, Keane MP, Louviere J, et al. The generalized multinomial logit model: accounting for scale and coefficient heterogeneity. Marketing Sci. Epub 2009 Jul 23 [online]. Available from URL: http://mktsci.journal.informs.org/cgi/ content/abstract/mksc.1090.0508v1 [Accessed 2010 Apr 21] Fiebig DG, Keane MP, Louviere J, et al. The generalized multinomial logit model: accounting for scale and coefficient heterogeneity. Marketing Sci. Epub 2009 Jul 23 [online]. Available from URL: http://​mktsci.​journal.​informs.​org/​cgi/​ content/abstract/mksc.1090.0508v1 [Accessed 2010 Apr 21]
18.
go back to reference Lancsar E, Louviere JJ. Conducting discrete choice experiments to inform healthcare decision making: a user’s guide. Pharmacoeconomics 2008; 26(8): 661–77PubMedCrossRef Lancsar E, Louviere JJ. Conducting discrete choice experiments to inform healthcare decision making: a user’s guide. Pharmacoeconomics 2008; 26(8): 661–77PubMedCrossRef
19.
go back to reference Leatherman S, Sutherland K. The quest for quality in the NHS: a chartbook on quality of care in the UK. Oxford: Radcliffe Publishing Ltd, 2005 Leatherman S, Sutherland K. The quest for quality in the NHS: a chartbook on quality of care in the UK. Oxford: Radcliffe Publishing Ltd, 2005
20.
21.
go back to reference Dolan P, Cookson R, Ferguson B. Effect of discussion and deliberation on the public’s views of priority setting in health care: focus groups study. BMJ 1999; 318: 916–9PubMedCrossRef Dolan P, Cookson R, Ferguson B. Effect of discussion and deliberation on the public’s views of priority setting in health care: focus groups study. BMJ 1999; 318: 916–9PubMedCrossRef
22.
go back to reference Mason H, Jones-Lee M, Donaldson C. Modelling the monetary value of a QALY: a new approach based on UK data. Health Econ 2009; 18: 933–50PubMedCrossRef Mason H, Jones-Lee M, Donaldson C. Modelling the monetary value of a QALY: a new approach based on UK data. Health Econ 2009; 18: 933–50PubMedCrossRef
23.
go back to reference Akkazieva B, Gulacsi L, Brandtmuller A, et al. Patients’ preferences for healthcare system reforms in Hungary: a conjoint analysis. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 2006; 5(3): 189–98PubMedCrossRef Akkazieva B, Gulacsi L, Brandtmuller A, et al. Patients’ preferences for healthcare system reforms in Hungary: a conjoint analysis. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 2006; 5(3): 189–98PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Using Best-Worst Scaling Choice Experiments to Measure Public Perceptions and Preferences for Healthcare Reform in Australia
Authors
Professor Jordan J. Louviere
Terry N. Flynn
Publication date
01-12-2010
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research / Issue 4/2010
Print ISSN: 1178-1653
Electronic ISSN: 1178-1661
DOI
https://doi.org/10.2165/11539660-000000000-00000

Other articles of this Issue 4/2010

The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research 4/2010 Go to the issue

Pioneer Profile

Deborah Marshall, PhD

Original Research Article

Analysis of Patients’ Preferences

Acknowledgments

Acknowledgment

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