Choice Consistency in Discrete Choice Experiments: Does Numeracy Skill Matter? (VIH-2023-0494.R2).

IF 4.9 2区 医学 Q1 ECONOMICS
Mesfin G Genie, Nabin Poudel, Francesco Paolucci, Surachat Ngorsuraches
{"title":"Choice Consistency in Discrete Choice Experiments: Does Numeracy Skill Matter? (VIH-2023-0494.R2).","authors":"Mesfin G Genie, Nabin Poudel, Francesco Paolucci, Surachat Ngorsuraches","doi":"10.1016/j.jval.2024.07.001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This study investigated the relationship between numeracy skills and choice consistency in discrete choice experiments (DCEs).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A DCE was conducted to explore patients' preferences for kidney transplantation in Italy. Patients completed the DCE and answered three-item numeracy questions. A Heteroskedastic Multinomial Logit (HMNL) model was used to investigate the effect of numeracy on choice consistency.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Higher numeracy skills were associated with greater choice consistency, increasing the scale to 1.63 (p<0.001), 1.39 (p<0.001), and 1.18 (p<0.001) for patients answering 3/3, 2/3, and 1/3 questions correctly, respectively, compared to those with no correct answers. This corresponded to 63%, 39%, and 18% more consistent choices, respectively. Accounting for choice consistency resulted in varying willingness-to-wait (WTW) estimates for kidney transplant attributes. Patients with the lowest numeracy (0/3) were willing to wait approximately 42 months [95% CI: 29.37, 54.68] for standard infectious risk, compared to 33 months [95% CI: 28.48, 38.09] for 1/3, 28 months [95% CI: 25.13, 30.32] for 2/3, and 24 months [95% CI: 20.51, 27.25] for 3/3 correct answers. However, WTW differences for an additional year of graft survival and neoplastic risk were not statistically significant across numeracy levels. Supplementary analyses of two additional DCEs on COVID-19 vaccinations and rheumatoid arthritis, conducted online, supported these findings: higher numeracy skills were associated with more consistent choices across different disease contexts and survey formats.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The findings suggested that combining patients with varying numeracy skills could bias WTW estimates, highlighting the need to consider numeracy in DCE data analysis and interpretation.</p>","PeriodicalId":23508,"journal":{"name":"Value in Health","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Value in Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2024.07.001","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: This study investigated the relationship between numeracy skills and choice consistency in discrete choice experiments (DCEs).

Methods: A DCE was conducted to explore patients' preferences for kidney transplantation in Italy. Patients completed the DCE and answered three-item numeracy questions. A Heteroskedastic Multinomial Logit (HMNL) model was used to investigate the effect of numeracy on choice consistency.

Results: Higher numeracy skills were associated with greater choice consistency, increasing the scale to 1.63 (p<0.001), 1.39 (p<0.001), and 1.18 (p<0.001) for patients answering 3/3, 2/3, and 1/3 questions correctly, respectively, compared to those with no correct answers. This corresponded to 63%, 39%, and 18% more consistent choices, respectively. Accounting for choice consistency resulted in varying willingness-to-wait (WTW) estimates for kidney transplant attributes. Patients with the lowest numeracy (0/3) were willing to wait approximately 42 months [95% CI: 29.37, 54.68] for standard infectious risk, compared to 33 months [95% CI: 28.48, 38.09] for 1/3, 28 months [95% CI: 25.13, 30.32] for 2/3, and 24 months [95% CI: 20.51, 27.25] for 3/3 correct answers. However, WTW differences for an additional year of graft survival and neoplastic risk were not statistically significant across numeracy levels. Supplementary analyses of two additional DCEs on COVID-19 vaccinations and rheumatoid arthritis, conducted online, supported these findings: higher numeracy skills were associated with more consistent choices across different disease contexts and survey formats.

Conclusions: The findings suggested that combining patients with varying numeracy skills could bias WTW estimates, highlighting the need to consider numeracy in DCE data analysis and interpretation.

离散选择实验中的选择一致性:计算能力重要吗?(VIH-2023-0494.R2)。
研究目的本研究调查了离散选择实验(DCE)中计算能力与选择一致性之间的关系:在意大利进行了一项离散选择实验,以探讨患者对肾移植的偏好。患者在完成离散选择实验的同时回答了三个算术问题。采用异方差多项式Logit(HMNL)模型研究计算能力对选择一致性的影响:结果:计算能力越高,选择一致性越大,量表增加到 1.63(p结论:研究结果表明,将不同计算能力的患者组合在一起,可以提高选择一致性:研究结果表明,将具有不同计算能力的患者合并在一起可能会使WTW估计值出现偏差,这突出说明了在DCE数据分析和解释中考虑计算能力的必要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Value in Health
Value in Health 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
6.90
自引率
6.70%
发文量
3064
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Value in Health contains original research articles for pharmacoeconomics, health economics, and outcomes research (clinical, economic, and patient-reported outcomes/preference-based research), as well as conceptual and health policy articles that provide valuable information for health care decision-makers as well as the research community. As the official journal of ISPOR, Value in Health provides a forum for researchers, as well as health care decision-makers to translate outcomes research into health care decisions.
文献相关原料
公司名称 产品信息 采购帮参考价格
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信