Experimental measurement of preferences in health care using best-worst scaling (BWS): theoretical and statistical issues

详细信息    查看全文

• 作者：Axel C. Mühlbacher ; Peter Zweifel ; Anika Kaczynski…
• 关键词：Choice Experiments ; Stated Preferences ; Discrete Choice Experiments ; Best ; Worst Scaling ; MaxDiff Scaling
• 刊名：Health Economics Review
• 出版年：2015
• 出版时间：December 2015
• 年：2015
• 卷：6
• 期：1
• 全文大小：970 KB
• 参考文献：1.Mühlbacher A, Kaczynski A, Zweifel P, Johnson FR. Experimental Measurement of Preferences in Health Care Using Best-Worst Scaling (BWS): Overview. Health Economics Review. 2016.
  2.Johnson FR, Mohamed AF, Özdemir S, Marshall DA, Phillips KA. How does cost matter in health‐care discrete‐choice experiments? Health Econ. 2011;20(3):323–30.PubMed PubMedCentral CrossRef
  3.Johnson RF, 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(1):3–13.CrossRef
  4.Mc Neil Vroomen J, Zweifel P. Preferences for Health Insurance and Health Status: Does it Matter Whether you are Dutch or German? European Journal of Health Economics. 2011;12:87–95.
  5.Mühlbacher A, Bethge S, Tockhorn A. Präferenzmessung im Gesundheitswesen: Grundlagen von Discrete-Choice-Experimenten [Measuring Preferences in Healthcare: Introduction to Discrete-Choice Experiments]. Gesundheitsökonomie & Qualitätsmanagement. 2013;18(4):159–72.CrossRef
  6.Telser H, Zweifel P. Validity of discrete-choice experiments evidence for health risk reduction. Appl Econ. 2007;39(1):69–78.CrossRef
  7.Ryan M. Discrete choice experiments in health care: NICE should consider using them for patient centred evaluations of technologies. BMJ. 2004;328(7436):360.PubMed PubMedCentral CrossRef
  8.Ryan M, Farrar S. Using conjoint analysis to elicit preferences for health care. BMJ. 2000;320(7248):1530–3.PubMed PubMedCentral CrossRef
  9.Lancaster K. Consumer demand: a new approach. New York: Columbia University Press; 1971.
  10.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. doi:10.​1002/​hec.​870 .PubMed CrossRef
  11.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. doi:10.​2307/​3172883 .CrossRef
  12.Louviere JJ, Islam T. A comparison of importance weights and willingness-to-pay measures derived from choice-based conjoint, constant sum scales and best–worst scaling. J Bus Res. 2008;61(9):903–11.CrossRef
  13.Fiebig DG, Keane MP, Louviere J, Wasi N. The Generalized Multinomial Logit Model: Accounting for Scale and Coefficient Heterogeneity. Mark Sci. 2010;29(3):393–421. doi:10.​1287/​mksc.​1090.​0508 .CrossRef
  14.Krosnick JA, Fabrigar LR. Designing rating scales for effective measurement in surveys. Survey measurement and process quality. Vol. 1. Hoboken, NJ:John Wiley & Sons, Inc.; 1997. p. 141–64.
  15.Terwee CB, Bot SD, de Boer MR, van der Windt DA, Knol DL, Dekker J, et al. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60(1):34–42.PubMed CrossRef
  16.Baumgartner H, Steenkamp JBEM. Response styles in marketing research: A cross-national investigation. J Mark Res. 2001; 38(2):143–56.CrossRef
  17.Krosnick JA. Response strategies for coping with the cognitive demands of attitude measures in surveys. Appl Cogn Psychol. 1991;5(3):213–36.CrossRef
  18.Sato Y. How to Measure Human Perception in Survey Questionnaires. Int J Anal Hierarchy Process. 2009;1(2):64–82.
  19.Alwin DF, Krosnick JA. The measurement of values in surveys: A comparison of ratings and rankings. Public Opin Q. 1985;49(4):535–52.CrossRef
  20.Ben-Akiva M, Morikawa T, Shiroishi F. Analysis of the reliability of preference ranking data. J Bus Res. 1992;24(2):149–64.CrossRef
  21.Marshall D, Bridges JF, Hauber B, Cameron R, Donnalley L, Fyie K, et al. Conjoint Analysis Applications in Health - How are Studies being Designed and Reported? Patient. 2010;3(4):249–56.PubMed CrossRef
  22.Sato Y. Comparison between multiple‐choice and analytic hierarchy process: measuring human perception. Int Trans Oper Res. 2004;11(1):77–86.CrossRef
  23.Kahneman D, Tversky A. Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica: J Econ Soc. 1979;47(2):263–91.CrossRef
  24.Paulhus DL. Measurement and control of response bias. In: Robinson JP, Shaver PR, Wrigthsman LS, editors. Measures of personality ans social psychological. Vol. 1. San Diego: Academic Press;1991. p. 17–59.
  25.Louviere JJ, Flynn TN, Marley A. Best-worst scaling: Theory, methods and applications. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press; 2015.
  26.Hess S, Daly A. Handbook of choice modelling. Cheltenham, United Kingdom: Edward Elgar Publishing; 2014.
  27.Flynn TN. Valuing citizen and patient preferences in health: recent developments in three types of best–worst scaling. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2010;10(3):259–67.PubMed CrossRef
  28.Lancsar E, Louviere J. Estimating individual level discrete choice models and welfare measures using best-worst choice experiments and sequential best-worst MNL. University of Technology, Centre for the Study of Choice (Censoc). 2008:1–24.
  29.Louviere JJ, Flynn TN. Using Best-Worst Scaling Choice Experiments to Measure Public Perceptions and Preferences for Healthcare Reform in Australia. Patient. 2010;3(4):275–83.PubMed CrossRef
  30.Lancsar E, Louviere J, Donaldson C, Currie G, Burgess L. Best worst discrete choice experiments in health: Methods and an application. Soc Sci Med. 2013;76:74–82.PubMed CrossRef
  31.Flynn TN, Louviere JJ, Peters TJ, Coast J. Best–worst scaling: what it can do for health care research and how to do it. J Health Econ. 2007;26(1):171–89.PubMed CrossRef
  32.Marley AAJ, editor. The best-worst method for the study of preferences: theory and application 2009: Working paper. Department of Psychology. University of Victoria. Victoria (Canada).
  33.Finn A, Louviere JJ. Determining the appropriate response to evidence of public concern: the case of food safety. J Public Policy Market. 1992;11(2):12–25.
  34.Cohen S, Orme B. What’s your preference? Mark Res. 2004;16:32–7.
  35.Auger P, Devinney TM, Louviere JJ. Using best–worst scaling methodology to investigate consumer ethical beliefs across countries. J Bus Ethics. 2007;70(3):299–326.CrossRef
  36.Garver MS, Williams Z, LeMay SA. Measuring the importance of attributes in logistics research. Int J Logist Manag. 2010;21(1):22–44.CrossRef
  37.Lee JA, Soutar GN, Louviere J. Measuring values using best‐worst scaling: The LOV example. Psychol Mark. 2007;24(12):1043–58.CrossRef
  38.Marley AAJ, Flynn TN, Louviere JJ. Probabilistic models of set-dependent and attribute-level best–worst choice. J Math Psychol. 2008;52(5):281–96.CrossRef
  39.Marti J. A best-worst scaling survey of adolescents’ level of concern for health and non-health consequences of smoking. Soc Sci Med. 2012;75(1):87–97.PubMed CrossRef
  40.Louviere JJ, Street D, Burgess L, Wasi N, Islam T, Marley AAJ. Modeling the choices of individual decision-makers by combining efficient choice experiment designs with extra preference information. J Choice Model. 2008;1(1):128–63.CrossRef
  41.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.PubMed CrossRef
  42.Coast J, Al‐Janabi H, Sutton EJ, Horrocks SA, Vosper AJ, Swancutt DR, et al. Using qualitative methods for attribute development for discrete choice experiments: issues and recommendations. Health Econ. 2012;21(6):730–41.PubMed CrossRef
  43.Kuhfeld WF. Marketing research methods in SAS. Experimental Design, Choice, Conjoint, and Graphical Techniques Cary, NC, SAS-Institute TS-722. 2009.
  44.Smith NF, Street DJ. The use of balanced incomplete block designs in designing randomized response surveys. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Statistics. 2003;45(2):181–94.CrossRef
  45.Cochran WG, Cox GM. Experimental design. Hoboken, NJ: Wilex Classics Library; 1992.
  46.Chrzan K, Orme B. An overview and comparison of design strategies for choice-based conjoint analysis. Sequim, WA: Sawtooth Software Research Paper Series; 2000.
  47.Louviere JJ, Hensher DA, Swait JD. Stated choice methods: analysis and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2000.CrossRef
  48.Burgess L, Street DJ. Optimal designs for choice experiments with asymmetric attributes. Stat Plan Inference. 2005;134(1):288–301.CrossRef
  49.Flynn T, Bilger M, Malhotra C, Finkelstein E. Are Efficient Designs Used in Discrete Choice Experiments Too Difficult for Some Respondents? A Case Study Eliciting Preferences for End-of-Life Care. PharmacoEconomics. 2015:1–12. doi:10.​1007/​s40273-015-0338-z
  50.McFadden D. The choice theory approach to market research. Mark Sci. 1986;5(4):275–97.CrossRef
  51.McFadden D. Conditional Logit Analysis of Qualitative Choice Behavior" in P. Zarembka Eds. Frontiers in Econometrics. New York: Acedemic press; 1974.
  52.Train KE. Discrete choice methods with simulation. BerkeleyCambridge university press; 2002.
  
• 作者单位：Axel C. Mühlbacher (1)
  Peter Zweifel (2)
  Anika Kaczynski (1)
  F. Reed Johnson (3)
  
  1. Institute Health Economics and Health Care Management, Hochschule Neubrandenburg, Neubrandenburg, Germany
  2. Department of Economics, University of Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland
  3. Center for Clinical and Genetic Economics, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University, Durham, USA
  
• 刊物主题：Public Health; Economic Policy; Public Finance & Economics; Health Informatics; Statistics for Life Sciences, Medicine, Health Sciences; Statistics for Business/Economics/Mathematical Finance/Insurance;
• 出版者：Springer Berlin Heidelberg
• ISSN：2191-1991

文摘

For optimal solutions in health care, decision makers inevitably must evaluate trade-offs, which call for multi-attribute valuation methods. Researchers have proposed using best-worst scaling (BWS) methods which seek to extract information from respondents by asking them to identify the best and worst items in each choice set. While a companion paper describes the different types of BWS, application and their advantages and downsides, this contribution expounds their relationships with microeconomic theory, which also have implications for statistical inference. This article devotes to the microeconomic foundations of preference measurement, also addressing issues such as scale invariance and scale heterogeneity. Furthermore the paper discusses the basics of preference measurement using rating, ranking and stated choice data in the light of the findings of the preceding section. Moreover the paper gives an introduction to the use of stated choice data and juxtaposes BWS with the microeconomic foundations. Keywords Choice Experiments Stated Preferences Discrete Choice Experiments Best-Worst Scaling MaxDiff Scaling