Skip to main content
Erschienen in: The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research 1/2019

01.02.2019 | Practical Application

Including Opt-Out Options in Discrete Choice Experiments: Issues to Consider

verfasst von: Danny Campbell, Seda Erdem

Erschienen in: The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research | Ausgabe 1/2019

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Providing an opt-out alternative in discrete choice experiments can often be considered to be important for presenting real-life choice situations in different contexts, including health. However, insufficient attention has been given to how best to address choice behaviours relating to this opt-out alternative when modelling discrete choice experiments, particularly in health studies. The objective of this paper is to demonstrate how to account for different opt-out effects in choice models. We aim to contribute to a better understanding of how to model opt-out choices and show the consequences of addressing the effects in an incorrect fashion. We present our code written in the R statistical language so that others can explore these issues in their own data. In this practical guideline, we generate synthetic data on medication choice and use Monte Carlo simulation. We consider three different definitions for the opt-out alternative and four candidate models for each definition. We apply a frequentist-based multimodel inference approach and use performance indicators to assess the relative suitability of each candidate model in a range of settings. We show that misspecifying the opt-out effect has repercussions for marginal willingness to pay estimation and the forecasting of market shares. Our findings also suggest a number of key recommendations for DCE practitioners interested in exploring these issues. There is no unique best way to analyse data collected from discrete choice experiments. Researchers should consider several models so that the relative support for different hypotheses of opt-out effects can be explored.
Anhänge
Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich
Fußnoten
1
We note that random utility maximisation is not the only framework for modelling choices. Indeed, for certain decisions, other choice axioms may be better suited, such as regret minimisation. In this paper, we utilise the most widely used framework to analyse opt-out effects.
 
2
Note, however, that the derivation of the nested logit model does not necessarily imply that participants make choices in this hierarchical manner.
 
3
While this design ensures that all attribute levels can be estimated independently of each other, we recognise that a more efficient experimental design could have been used to minimise the variance of the parameters. However, in a Monte Carlo experiment with specified parameters it may be more appropriate to show that the results stand up in cases where the experimental design is not tailored too closely to the data-generating parameters. Indeed, this would be the case in a real-life empirical application.
 
4
This is sufficient for the purpose at hand since idiosyncratic simulation errors are not found to be large, as will be shown in Tables 3 and 4.
 
5
In this paper, we use the Bayesian information criterion . We derive this for each estimated model m in treatment t and replication r as follows: \(\text {IC}_{m_\mathrm{tr}}= \ln \left( N\right) K_{m_\mathrm{tr}} - 2\ln \left( \hat{\mathcal {L}}_{m_\mathrm{tr}}\right)\), where N is the number of choice observations, \(\hat{\mathcal {L}}_{m_\mathrm{tr}}\) is the maximised value of the likelihood function for model m in treatment t and replication r, and \(K_{m_\mathrm{tr}}\) is the number of estimated parameters associated with this model.
 
6
As noted when describing the independent availability logit model in Sect. 2.2.3, the alternatives taken into account by a (real or simulated) participant cannot be established with certainty. For the sake of comparison, we assume an alternative is deemed to be not in a participant’s consideration set if they never choose it in any of their eight choices.
 
Literatur
1.
Zurück zum Zitat Craig BM, Lancsar E, Mühlbacher AC, Brown DS, Ostermann J. Health preference research: an overview. Patient Patient Cent Outcomes Res. 2017;10(4):507–10.CrossRef Craig BM, Lancsar E, Mühlbacher AC, Brown DS, Ostermann J. Health preference research: an overview. Patient Patient Cent Outcomes Res. 2017;10(4):507–10.CrossRef
2.
Zurück zum Zitat Ryan M, Skåtun C. Modelling non-demanders in choice experiments. Health Econ. 2004;13(4):397–402.CrossRef Ryan M, Skåtun C. Modelling non-demanders in choice experiments. Health Econ. 2004;13(4):397–402.CrossRef
3.
Zurück zum Zitat Lancsar E, Louviere JJ. Conducting discrete choice experiments to inform healthcare decision making. Pharmacoeconomics. 2008;26(8):661–77.CrossRef Lancsar E, Louviere JJ. Conducting discrete choice experiments to inform healthcare decision making. Pharmacoeconomics. 2008;26(8):661–77.CrossRef
4.
Zurück zum Zitat Boxall P, Adamowicz WL, Moon A. Complexity in choice experiments: choice of the status quo alternative and implications for welfare measurement. Aust J Agric Resour Econ. 2009;53(4):503–19.CrossRef Boxall P, Adamowicz WL, Moon A. Complexity in choice experiments: choice of the status quo alternative and implications for welfare measurement. Aust J Agric Resour Econ. 2009;53(4):503–19.CrossRef
5.
Zurück zum Zitat Veldwijk J, Lambooij MS, de Bekker-Grob EW, Smit SA, de Wit DA. The effect of including an opt-out option in discrete choice experiments. PLoS ONE. 2014;9(11):e111805.CrossRef Veldwijk J, Lambooij MS, de Bekker-Grob EW, Smit SA, de Wit DA. The effect of including an opt-out option in discrete choice experiments. PLoS ONE. 2014;9(11):e111805.CrossRef
6.
Zurück zum Zitat Louviere JJ, Lancsar E. Choice experiments in health: the good, the bad, the ugly and toward a brighter future. Health Econ Policy Law. 2009;4(4):527–46.CrossRef Louviere JJ, Lancsar E. Choice experiments in health: the good, the bad, the ugly and toward a brighter future. Health Econ Policy Law. 2009;4(4):527–46.CrossRef
7.
Zurück zum Zitat Bridges JFP, Hauber AB, Marshall D, Lloyd A, Prosser LA, Regier DA, Johnson FR, Mauskopf J. 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.CrossRef Bridges JFP, Hauber AB, Marshall D, Lloyd A, Prosser LA, Regier DA, Johnson FR, Mauskopf J. 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.CrossRef
8.
Zurück zum Zitat Johnston RJ, Boyle KJ, Adamowicz W, Bennett J, Brouwer R, Cameron TA, Hanemann WM, Hanley N, Ryan M, Scarpa R, Tourangeau R, Vossler C. Contemporary guidance for stated preference studies. J Assoc Environ Resour Econ. 2017;4(2):319–405. Johnston RJ, Boyle KJ, Adamowicz W, Bennett J, Brouwer R, Cameron TA, Hanemann WM, Hanley N, Ryan M, Scarpa R, Tourangeau R, Vossler C. Contemporary guidance for stated preference studies. J Assoc Environ Resour Econ. 2017;4(2):319–405.
9.
Zurück zum Zitat Niebor A, Xander K, Elly S. Preferences for long-term care services: willingness to pay estimates derived from a discrete choice experiment. Soc Sci Med. 2010;70(9):1317–25.CrossRef Niebor A, Xander K, Elly S. Preferences for long-term care services: willingness to pay estimates derived from a discrete choice experiment. Soc Sci Med. 2010;70(9):1317–25.CrossRef
10.
Zurück zum Zitat Milte R, Ratcliffe J, Miller M, Whitehead C, Cameron I, Crotty M. What are frail older people prepared to endure to achieve improved mobility following hip fracture? A discrete choice experiment. J Rehabil Med. 2013;45(1):81–6.CrossRef Milte R, Ratcliffe J, Miller M, Whitehead C, Cameron I, Crotty M. What are frail older people prepared to endure to achieve improved mobility following hip fracture? A discrete choice experiment. J Rehabil Med. 2013;45(1):81–6.CrossRef
11.
Zurück zum Zitat Dhar R, Simonson I. The effect of forced choice on choice. J Market Res. 2003;40(2):146–60. Dhar R, Simonson I. The effect of forced choice on choice. J Market Res. 2003;40(2):146–60.
12.
Zurück zum Zitat Bahamonde-Birke FJ, Navarro I, de Dios Ortúzar J. If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice. J Choice Model. 2017;22:13–23.CrossRef Bahamonde-Birke FJ, Navarro I, de Dios Ortúzar J. If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice. J Choice Model. 2017;22:13–23.CrossRef
13.
Zurück zum Zitat Schlereth C, Skiera B. Two new features in discrete choice experiments to improve willingness-to-pay estimation that result in SDR and SADR: separated (adaptive) dual response. Manag Sci. 2017;63(3):829–42.CrossRef Schlereth C, Skiera B. Two new features in discrete choice experiments to improve willingness-to-pay estimation that result in SDR and SADR: separated (adaptive) dual response. Manag Sci. 2017;63(3):829–42.CrossRef
14.
Zurück zum Zitat Salkeld G, Ryan M, Short L. The veil of experience: do consumers prefer what they know best? Health Econ. 2000;9(3):267–70.CrossRef Salkeld G, Ryan M, Short L. The veil of experience: do consumers prefer what they know best? Health Econ. 2000;9(3):267–70.CrossRef
15.
Zurück zum Zitat Ryan M, Ubach C. Testing for an experience endowment effect in health care. Appl Econ Lett. 2003;10(7):407–10.CrossRef Ryan M, Ubach C. Testing for an experience endowment effect in health care. Appl Econ Lett. 2003;10(7):407–10.CrossRef
16.
Zurück zum Zitat Meyerhoff J, Liebe U. Status quo effect in choice experiments: empirical evidence on attitudes and choice task complexity. Land Econ. 2009;85(3):515–28.CrossRef Meyerhoff J, Liebe U. Status quo effect in choice experiments: empirical evidence on attitudes and choice task complexity. Land Econ. 2009;85(3):515–28.CrossRef
17.
Zurück zum Zitat Oehlmann M, Meyerhoff J, Mariel P, Weller P. Uncovering context-induced status quo effects in choice experiments. J Environ Econ Manag. 2017;81:59–73.CrossRef Oehlmann M, Meyerhoff J, Mariel P, Weller P. Uncovering context-induced status quo effects in choice experiments. J Environ Econ Manag. 2017;81:59–73.CrossRef
18.
Zurück zum Zitat Kahneman D, Knetsch JL, Thaler RH. Anomalies: the endowment effect, loss aversion, and status quo bias. J Econ Perspect. 1991;5(1):193–206.CrossRef Kahneman D, Knetsch JL, Thaler RH. Anomalies: the endowment effect, loss aversion, and status quo bias. J Econ Perspect. 1991;5(1):193–206.CrossRef
19.
Zurück zum Zitat Krosnick JA, Holbrook AL, Berent MK, Carson RT, Hanemann WM, Kopp RJ, Mitchell RM, Presser S, Ruud PA, Smith VK, Moody WR, Green MC, Conaway M. The impact of “no opinion” response options on data quality: non-attitude reduction or an invitation to satisfice? Public Opinion Q. 2002;66(3):371–403.CrossRef Krosnick JA, Holbrook AL, Berent MK, Carson RT, Hanemann WM, Kopp RJ, Mitchell RM, Presser S, Ruud PA, Smith VK, Moody WR, Green MC, Conaway M. The impact of “no opinion” response options on data quality: non-attitude reduction or an invitation to satisfice? Public Opinion Q. 2002;66(3):371–403.CrossRef
20.
Zurück zum Zitat Tversky A, Shafir E. Choice under conflict: the dynamics of deferred decision. Psychol Sci. 1992;3(6):358–61.CrossRef Tversky A, Shafir E. Choice under conflict: the dynamics of deferred decision. Psychol Sci. 1992;3(6):358–61.CrossRef
21.
Zurück zum Zitat Baron J, Ritov I. Reference points and omission bias. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 1994;59(3):475–98.CrossRef Baron J, Ritov I. Reference points and omission bias. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 1994;59(3):475–98.CrossRef
22.
Zurück zum Zitat Masatlioglu Y, Ok EA. Rational choice with status quo bias. J Econ Theory. 2005;121(1):1–29.CrossRef Masatlioglu Y, Ok EA. Rational choice with status quo bias. J Econ Theory. 2005;121(1):1–29.CrossRef
23.
Zurück zum Zitat Brazell JD, Diener CG, Karniouchina E, Moore WL, Séverin V, Uldry PF. The no-choice option and dual response choice designs. Market Lett. 2006;17(4):255–68.CrossRef Brazell JD, Diener CG, Karniouchina E, Moore WL, Séverin V, Uldry PF. The no-choice option and dual response choice designs. Market Lett. 2006;17(4):255–68.CrossRef
24.
Zurück zum Zitat Samuelson W, Zeckhauser R. Status quo bias in decision making. J Risk Uncertain. 1988;1(1):7–59.CrossRef Samuelson W, Zeckhauser R. Status quo bias in decision making. J Risk Uncertain. 1988;1(1):7–59.CrossRef
26.
Zurück zum Zitat Scarpa R, Ferrini S, Willis K. Performance of error component models for status-quo effects in choice experiments. In: Scarpa R, Alberini A, editors. Applications of simulation methods in environmental and resource economics. Dordrecht: Springer; 2005. p. 243–73.CrossRef Scarpa R, Ferrini S, Willis K. Performance of error component models for status-quo effects in choice experiments. In: Scarpa R, Alberini A, editors. Applications of simulation methods in environmental and resource economics. Dordrecht: Springer; 2005. p. 243–73.CrossRef
27.
Zurück zum Zitat Train K. Discrete choice methods with simulation. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2009.CrossRef Train K. Discrete choice methods with simulation. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2009.CrossRef
28.
Zurück zum Zitat von Haefen RH, Massey RH, Adamowicz WL. Serial nonparticipation in repeated discrete choice models. Am J Agric Econ. 2005;87(4):1061–76.CrossRef von Haefen RH, Massey RH, Adamowicz WL. Serial nonparticipation in repeated discrete choice models. Am J Agric Econ. 2005;87(4):1061–76.CrossRef
29.
Zurück zum Zitat Manski CF. The structure of random utility models. Theory Decis. 1977;8:229–54.CrossRef Manski CF. The structure of random utility models. Theory Decis. 1977;8:229–54.CrossRef
30.
Zurück zum Zitat Frejinger E, Bierlaire M, Ben-Akiva M. Sampling of alternatives for route choice modeling. Transp Res Part B Methodol. 2009;43(10):984–94.CrossRef Frejinger E, Bierlaire M, Ben-Akiva M. Sampling of alternatives for route choice modeling. Transp Res Part B Methodol. 2009;43(10):984–94.CrossRef
31.
Zurück zum Zitat Campbell D, Hensher DA, Scarpa R. Cost thresholds, cut-offs and sensitivities in stated choice analysis: identification and implications. Resour Energy Econ. 2012;34(3):396–411.CrossRef Campbell D, Hensher DA, Scarpa R. Cost thresholds, cut-offs and sensitivities in stated choice analysis: identification and implications. Resour Energy Econ. 2012;34(3):396–411.CrossRef
32.
Zurück zum Zitat Kaplan S, Shiftan Y, Bekhor S. Development and estimation of a semi-compensatory model with a flexible error structure. Transp Res Part B Methodol. 2012;46(2):291–304.CrossRef Kaplan S, Shiftan Y, Bekhor S. Development and estimation of a semi-compensatory model with a flexible error structure. Transp Res Part B Methodol. 2012;46(2):291–304.CrossRef
33.
Zurück zum Zitat Campbell D, Erdem S. Position bias in best-worst scaling surveys: a case study on trust in institutions. Am J Agric Econ. 2015;97(2):526–45.CrossRef Campbell D, Erdem S. Position bias in best-worst scaling surveys: a case study on trust in institutions. Am J Agric Econ. 2015;97(2):526–45.CrossRef
34.
Zurück zum Zitat Erdem S, Campbell D, Thompson C. Elimination and selection by aspects in health choice experiments: prioritising health service innovations. J Health Econ. 2014;38:10–22.CrossRef Erdem S, Campbell D, Thompson C. Elimination and selection by aspects in health choice experiments: prioritising health service innovations. J Health Econ. 2014;38:10–22.CrossRef
35.
Zurück zum Zitat Henningsen A, Toomet O. Maxlik: a package for maximum likelihood estimation in R. Comput Stat. 2011;26(3):443–58. Henningsen A, Toomet O. Maxlik: a package for maximum likelihood estimation in R. Comput Stat. 2011;26(3):443–58.
36.
Zurück zum Zitat Buckland ST, Burnham KP, Augustin NH. Model selection: an integral part of inference. Biometrics. 1997;53(2):603–18.CrossRef Buckland ST, Burnham KP, Augustin NH. Model selection: an integral part of inference. Biometrics. 1997;53(2):603–18.CrossRef
37.
Zurück zum Zitat Symonds MRE, Moussalli A. A brief guide to model selection, multimodel inference and model averaging in behavioural ecology using Akaike’s information criterion. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 2011;65(1):13–21.CrossRef Symonds MRE, Moussalli A. A brief guide to model selection, multimodel inference and model averaging in behavioural ecology using Akaike’s information criterion. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 2011;65(1):13–21.CrossRef
38.
Zurück zum Zitat Layton DF, Lee ST. Embracing model uncertainty: strategies for response pooling and model averaging. Environ Resour Econ. 2006;34(1):51–85.CrossRef Layton DF, Lee ST. Embracing model uncertainty: strategies for response pooling and model averaging. Environ Resour Econ. 2006;34(1):51–85.CrossRef
39.
Zurück zum Zitat Campbell D, Mørkbak MR, Olsen SB. The link between response time and preference, variance and processing heterogeneity in stated choice experiments. J Environ Econ Manag. 2018;88(1):18–34.CrossRef Campbell D, Mørkbak MR, Olsen SB. The link between response time and preference, variance and processing heterogeneity in stated choice experiments. J Environ Econ Manag. 2018;88(1):18–34.CrossRef
41.
Zurück zum Zitat Aizaki H. Basic functions for supporting an implementation of choice experiments in R. J Stat Softw. 2012;50(2):1–24. Aizaki H. Basic functions for supporting an implementation of choice experiments in R. J Stat Softw. 2012;50(2):1–24.
Metadaten
Titel
Including Opt-Out Options in Discrete Choice Experiments: Issues to Consider
verfasst von
Danny Campbell
Seda Erdem
Publikationsdatum
01.02.2019
Verlag
Springer International Publishing
Erschienen in
The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research / Ausgabe 1/2019
Print ISSN: 1178-1653
Elektronische ISSN: 1178-1661
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-018-0324-6

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2019

The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research 1/2019 Zur Ausgabe