Dataset Information

Two for the price of one: If moving beyond traditional single-best discrete choice experiments, should we use best-worst, best-best or ranking for preference elicitation?

ABSTRACT: This study undertook a head-to-head comparison of best-worst, best-best and ranking discrete choice experiments (DCEs) to help decide which method to use if moving beyond traditional single-best DCEs. Respondents were randomized to one of three preference elicitation methods. Rank-ordered (exploded) mixed logit models and respondent-reported data were used to compare methods and first and second choices. First choices differed from second choices and preferences differed between elicitation methods, even beyond scale and scale dynamics. First choices of best-worst had good choice consistency, scale dynamics and statistical efficiency, but this method's second choices performed worst. Ranking performed best on respondent-reported difficulty and preference; best-best's second choices on statistical efficiency. All three preference elicitation methods improve efficiency of data collection relative to using first choices only. However, differences in preferences between first and second choices challenge moving beyond single-best DCE. If nevertheless doing so, best-best and ranking are preferred over best-worst DCE.

SUBMITTER: Huls SPI

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9826006 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Two for the price of one: If moving beyond traditional single-best discrete choice experiments, should we use best-worst, best-best or ranking for preference elicitation?

Huls Samare P I SPI Lancsar Emily E Donkers Bas B Ride Jemimah J

Health economics 20220914 12

This study undertook a head-to-head comparison of best-worst, best-best and ranking discrete choice experiments (DCEs) to help decide which method to use if moving beyond traditional single-best DCEs. Respondents were randomized to one of three preference elicitation methods. Rank-ordered (exploded) mixed logit models and respondent-reported data were used to compare methods and first and second choices. First choices differed from second choices and preferences differed between elicitation meth ...[more]

PMID: 36102864

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeStudies on healthy lifestyle interventions in survivors of colorectal cancer have been disappointing, demonstrating only modest changes. This study aims to quantify people's preferences for different aspects of dietary intervention.MethodA best-worst discrete choice experiment was designed and incorporated into a questionnaire including participants' characteristics and a self-assessment of lifestyle.ResultsThe response rate was 68% and 179 questionnaires were analysed. When analysing aggregate preferences, the modes of information provision selected as the most preferred were "face-to-face" (willingness to pay (WTP) £63.97, p ≤ 0.001) and "telephone" (WTP £62.36, p < 0.001) discussions whereas group discussions were preferred least (WTP -£118.96, p ≤ 0.001). Scenarios that included hospitals were most preferred (WTP £17.94, p = 0.031), and the favoured provider was bowel cancer nurses (WTP £75.11, p ≤ 0.001). When investigating preference heterogeneity, three sub-groups were identified: Firstly, "technophiles" preferring email (WTP £239.60, p ≤ 0.001) were male, were younger and had fewer risk factors. Secondly, a "one-to-one" group had strong preference for interventions over the telephone or at their local doctors and were older (WTP £642.13, p ≤ 0.001). Finally, a "person-centred" group preferred face-to-face individual or group sessions (WTP £358.79, p < 0.001) and had a high risk lifestyle.ConclusionFor survivors of colorectal cancer, there is not one approach that suits all when it comes to providing dietary advice.Implications for cancer survivorsThis is important information to consider when planning healthy lifestyle interventions which include dietary advice for survivors of colorectal cancer. Aligning services to individuals' preferences has the potential to improve patient experience and outcomes by increasing uptake of healthy lifestyle advice services and promoting a more tailored approach to dietary modifications, acknowledging sub-groups of people within the total population of colorectal cancer survivors.

Project description:Health-related quality of life (HRQOL) instruments are sometimes used without explicit understanding of which HRQOL domains are important to a given population. In this study, we sought to elicit an importance hierarchy among 27 HRQOL domains (derived from the general population) via a best-worst scaling survey of the population in Singapore, and to determine whether these domains were consistently valued across gender, age, ethnicity, and presence of chronic illnesses. We conducted a community-based study that sampled participants with quotas for gender, ethnicity, age, presence of chronic illness, and interview language. For the best-worst scaling exercise, we constructed comparison sets according to a balanced incomplete block design resulting in 13 sets of questions, each with nine choice tasks. Each task involved three HRQOL domains from which participants identified the most and least important domain. We performed a standard analysis of best-worst object scaling design (Case 1) using simple summary statistics; 603 residents participated in the survey. The three most important domains of health were: "the ability to take care of self without help from others" (best-worst score (BWS): 636), "healing and resistance to illness" (BWS: 461), and "having good relationships with family, friends, and others" (BWS: 373). The 10 top-ranked domains included physical, mental, and social health. The three least important domains were: "having a satisfying sex life" (BWS: -803), "having normal physical appearance" (BWS: -461), and "interacting with others (talking, shared activities, etc.)" (BWS: -444). Generally, top-ranked domains were consistently valued across gender, age, ethnicity, and presence of chronic illness. We conclude that the 10 top-ranked domains reflect physical, mental, and social dimensions of well-being suggesting that the sampled population's views on health are consistent with the World Health Organization's definition of health, "a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity".

Project description:BackgroundNurse practitioners play a critical role in improving the access to care and in meeting the needs for health care. However, prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, the average turnover rate of nurse practitioners was 10 % with associated total direct cost that ranged from $85,832 to $114,919 for each episode of turnover in the United States. Little is known about the job preference of nurse practitioners and the cost savings to an organization that provides jobs with characteristics attractive to nurse practitioners.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to identify the preferred job characteristics that are associated with nurse practitioners' job choices; and to determine the extent to which nurse practitioners would need to be compensated for practicing without these characteristics.DesignA two-stage design using a mixed method approach.Setting(s)The state of Georgia in the United States.Participants2757 nurse practitioners who were actively licensed were invited to participate. Of the 412 participants, 372 actively employed in Georgia were included in the analysis.MethodsA 2-stage discrete choice experiment was designed. Stage-1 was a qualitative design using a focus group to identify nurse practitioners' preferred job characteristics. Stage-2 was a quantitative design using survey distribution and analysis. A mixed logit model was used for ranking nurse practitioners' preferred job characteristics and the extent to which they would need to be compensated.ResultsOn average nurse practitioners were 47.4 years of age; the majority were female (90 %), white (75.3 %), and educated at the master's level (88.7 %). Participants did not value teams that were not very cohesive (β = -1.50); administration that was not very responsive and supportive (β = -1.04); being supervised by a physician (β = -0.58); not having their own panel of patients (β = -0.42); and not billing under their own National Provider Identifier (β = -0.18). Participants would need an increase in annual income of USD$21,780 for practicing in a not very cohesive team; USD$15,280 for practicing with a not very responsive administration; and USD$21,450 for being supervised by a physician.ConclusionsA cohesive, responsive, and supportive working environment and being able to practice independently are important characteristics for nurse practitioners when choosing a job. Healthcare managers should provide a workplace culture that reflects these preferred job characteristics to attract and retain nurse practitioners. Policymakers should consider reforming the scope of practice legislation to promote the independent practice of nurse practitioners.

Dataset Information

Two for the price of one: If moving beyond traditional single-best discrete choice experiments, should we use best-worst, best-best or ranking for preference elicitation?

Publications

Two for the price of one: If moving beyond traditional single-best discrete choice experiments, should we use best-worst, best-best or ranking for preference elicitation?

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets