Guidance or Misdirection? Unpacking the Role of Feedback in Health Preference Assessments.

IF 2.4 3区 医学 Q2 ECONOMICS
Health economics Pub Date : 2026-06-01 Epub Date: 2026-03-03 DOI:10.1002/hec.70093
Mesfin G Genie, Shelby D Reed, Semra Ozdemir
{"title":"Guidance or Misdirection? Unpacking the Role of Feedback in Health Preference Assessments.","authors":"Mesfin G Genie, Shelby D Reed, Semra Ozdemir","doi":"10.1002/hec.70093","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This study investigated the impact of providing feedback to respondents on a dominance-structured choice task on subsequent choice behavior in a discrete choice experiment (DCE). The DCE was conducted among 626 patients with heart failure. Respondents were given a dominance-structured choice task in which two devices (Device A and Device B) offered no benefits but carried risks compared to a \"No Device\" option. Among those who selected a device option (N = 340), half received feedback and an opportunity to revise their choice, while the other half did not. The effect of feedback on preference for the \"No Device\" option and choice consistency was examined using multinomial, heteroscedastic multinomial logit, and heteroscedastic latent-class logit models. Among those who received feedback (N = 170), 71% continued to choose the device options. Feedback recipients were more likely to choose the \"No Device\" option in subsequent questions (p < 0.01). Feedback led to a 25% reduction in choice consistency (p < 0.01) and an increased likelihood of choosing the \"No Device\" option. Impact on consistency varied across latent classes: feedback decreased consistency in the risk-sensitive class but increased consistency in the anti-device class, highlighting potential unintended consequences. Further research is needed to understand its effects in different contexts and samples.</p>","PeriodicalId":12847,"journal":{"name":"Health economics","volume":" ","pages":"910-928"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2026-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13126101/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health economics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.70093","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/3/3 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This study investigated the impact of providing feedback to respondents on a dominance-structured choice task on subsequent choice behavior in a discrete choice experiment (DCE). The DCE was conducted among 626 patients with heart failure. Respondents were given a dominance-structured choice task in which two devices (Device A and Device B) offered no benefits but carried risks compared to a "No Device" option. Among those who selected a device option (N = 340), half received feedback and an opportunity to revise their choice, while the other half did not. The effect of feedback on preference for the "No Device" option and choice consistency was examined using multinomial, heteroscedastic multinomial logit, and heteroscedastic latent-class logit models. Among those who received feedback (N = 170), 71% continued to choose the device options. Feedback recipients were more likely to choose the "No Device" option in subsequent questions (p < 0.01). Feedback led to a 25% reduction in choice consistency (p < 0.01) and an increased likelihood of choosing the "No Device" option. Impact on consistency varied across latent classes: feedback decreased consistency in the risk-sensitive class but increased consistency in the anti-device class, highlighting potential unintended consequences. Further research is needed to understand its effects in different contexts and samples.

引导还是误导?揭示反馈在健康偏好评估中的作用。
在离散选择实验(DCE)中,研究了在优势结构选择任务中向被试提供反馈对其后续选择行为的影响。DCE在626例心力衰竭患者中进行。受访者被给予一个支配结构的选择任务,其中两个设备(设备a和设备B)与“无设备”选项相比没有好处,但存在风险。在选择设备选项的人中(N = 340),一半人收到反馈并有机会修改他们的选择,而另一半人没有。使用多项、异方差多项logit和异方差潜在类logit模型检验了反馈对“无设备”选项偏好和选择一致性的影响。在接受反馈的患者(N = 170)中,71%的人继续选择设备选项。在随后的问题中,反馈接受者更有可能选择“无设备”选项
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
Health economics
Health economics 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
4.80%
发文量
177
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: This Journal publishes articles on all aspects of health economics: theoretical contributions, empirical studies and analyses of health policy from the economic perspective. Its scope includes the determinants of health and its definition and valuation, as well as the demand for and supply of health care; planning and market mechanisms; micro-economic evaluation of individual procedures and treatments; and evaluation of the performance of health care systems. Contributions should typically be original and innovative. As a rule, the Journal does not include routine applications of cost-effectiveness analysis, discrete choice experiments and costing analyses. Editorials are regular features, these should be concise and topical. Occasionally commissioned reviews are published and special issues bring together contributions on a single topic. Health Economics Letters facilitate rapid exchange of views on topical issues. Contributions related to problems in both developed and developing countries are welcome.
×
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
小红书