Using Discrete Choice Experiments (DCEs) to Compare Social and Personal Preferences for Health and Well-Being Outcomes.

IF 3.1 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Nyantara Wickramasekera, An Thu Ta, Becky Field, Aki Tsuchiya
{"title":"Using Discrete Choice Experiments (DCEs) to Compare Social and Personal Preferences for Health and Well-Being Outcomes.","authors":"Nyantara Wickramasekera, An Thu Ta, Becky Field, Aki Tsuchiya","doi":"10.1177/0272989X251378427","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>BackgroundEconomic evaluations in health typically assume a nonwelfarist framework, arguably better served by preferences elicited from a social perspective than a personal one. However, most health state valuation studies elicit personal preferences, leading to a methodological inconsistency. No studies have directly compared social and personal preferences for outcomes using otherwise identical scenarios, leaving their empirical relationship unclear.AimThis unique study examines whether the choice of eliciting preferences from a social or personal perspective influences valuations of health and well-being outcomes.MethodsUsing discrete choice experiments, social and personal preferences for health and well-being attributes were elicited from the UK general public recruited from an internet panel (<i>n</i> = 1,020 personal, <i>n</i> = 3,009 social surveys). Mixed logit models were estimated, and willingness-to-pay (WTP) values for each attribute were calculated to compare differences between the 2 perspectives.ResultsWhile no significant differences were observed in the effects of physical and mental health, loneliness, and neighborhood safety across the 2 perspectives, significant differences emerged in WTP values for employment and housing quality. For instance, other things being the same, personal preferences rate being retired as more preferable than being an informal caregiver, but the social preferences rate them in the reverse order.ConclusionOur findings demonstrate that the perspective matters, particularly for valuing outcomes such as employment and housing. These findings indicate that the exclusive use of personal preferences to value states such as employment and housing quality may potentially lead to suboptimal resource allocation, given that such valuations reflect individual rather than societal benefit. This highlights the importance of considering perspective especially in the resource allocation of public health interventions.HighlightsPersonal preferences were not aligned with social preferences for employment and housing quality outcomes.Respondents valued health outcomes the same in both social and personal perspectives.Using personal preferences in public health resource allocation decisions may not reflect societal priorities.</p>","PeriodicalId":49839,"journal":{"name":"Medical Decision Making","volume":" ","pages":"272989X251378427"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical Decision Making","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X251378427","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

BackgroundEconomic evaluations in health typically assume a nonwelfarist framework, arguably better served by preferences elicited from a social perspective than a personal one. However, most health state valuation studies elicit personal preferences, leading to a methodological inconsistency. No studies have directly compared social and personal preferences for outcomes using otherwise identical scenarios, leaving their empirical relationship unclear.AimThis unique study examines whether the choice of eliciting preferences from a social or personal perspective influences valuations of health and well-being outcomes.MethodsUsing discrete choice experiments, social and personal preferences for health and well-being attributes were elicited from the UK general public recruited from an internet panel (n = 1,020 personal, n = 3,009 social surveys). Mixed logit models were estimated, and willingness-to-pay (WTP) values for each attribute were calculated to compare differences between the 2 perspectives.ResultsWhile no significant differences were observed in the effects of physical and mental health, loneliness, and neighborhood safety across the 2 perspectives, significant differences emerged in WTP values for employment and housing quality. For instance, other things being the same, personal preferences rate being retired as more preferable than being an informal caregiver, but the social preferences rate them in the reverse order.ConclusionOur findings demonstrate that the perspective matters, particularly for valuing outcomes such as employment and housing. These findings indicate that the exclusive use of personal preferences to value states such as employment and housing quality may potentially lead to suboptimal resource allocation, given that such valuations reflect individual rather than societal benefit. This highlights the importance of considering perspective especially in the resource allocation of public health interventions.HighlightsPersonal preferences were not aligned with social preferences for employment and housing quality outcomes.Respondents valued health outcomes the same in both social and personal perspectives.Using personal preferences in public health resource allocation decisions may not reflect societal priorities.

使用离散选择实验(DCEs)比较健康和福祉结果的社会和个人偏好。
健康方面的经济评估通常采用一种非福利主义的框架,可以说,从社会角度而不是个人角度得出的偏好更好地服务于这种框架。然而,大多数健康状态评估研究都涉及个人偏好,导致方法不一致。没有研究直接比较社会和个人对结果的偏好,使用其他相同的场景,使他们的经验关系不清楚。目的:这项独特的研究探讨了从社会或个人角度出发的选择是否会影响对健康和福祉结果的评估。方法采用离散选择实验,从互联网小组(n = 1,020个人,n = 3,009个社会调查)中招募的英国普通公众中得出健康和幸福属性的社会和个人偏好。估计混合logit模型,并计算每个属性的支付意愿(WTP)值,以比较两种视角之间的差异。结果在身心健康、孤独感和邻里安全三个维度上,两种维度的WTP值差异不显著,但在就业和居住质量维度上存在显著差异。例如,在其他条件相同的情况下,个人偏好认为退休比做一名非正式的照顾者更受欢迎,但社会偏好则相反。结论:我们的研究结果表明,视角很重要,特别是在评估就业和住房等结果时。这些发现表明,仅仅使用个人偏好来评估就业和住房质量等状况,可能会导致资源配置不理想,因为这些评估反映的是个人利益而不是社会利益。这突出了考虑前景的重要性,特别是在公共卫生干预措施的资源分配方面。个人偏好与社会对就业和住房质量结果的偏好不一致。答复者从社会和个人角度同样重视健康结果。在公共卫生资源分配决策中使用个人偏好可能无法反映社会优先事项。
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
Medical Decision Making
Medical Decision Making 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
5.60%
发文量
146
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Medical Decision Making offers rigorous and systematic approaches to decision making that are designed to improve the health and clinical care of individuals and to assist with health care policy development. Using the fundamentals of decision analysis and theory, economic evaluation, and evidence based quality assessment, Medical Decision Making presents both theoretical and practical statistical and modeling techniques and methods from a variety of disciplines.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信