A Comparison of Ordered Categorical versus Discrete Choices within a Stated Preference Survey of Whole-Blood Donors.

IF 3.1 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Zia Sadique, John Cairns, Kaat De Corte, Sarah Willis, Alec Miners, Nick Bansback, Richard Grieve
{"title":"A Comparison of Ordered Categorical versus Discrete Choices within a Stated Preference Survey of Whole-Blood Donors.","authors":"Zia Sadique,&nbsp;John Cairns,&nbsp;Kaat De Corte,&nbsp;Sarah Willis,&nbsp;Alec Miners,&nbsp;Nick Bansback,&nbsp;Richard Grieve","doi":"10.1177/0272989X221145048","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Highlights: </strong>This article compares the relative preferences from stated preference (SP) questions requiring ordered categorical versus discrete choice responses. The approaches were contrasted for blood donation service characteristics that offer opportunities to donate blood.The estimates of relative preferences for alternative blood donation service characteristics were similar between the 2 forms of SP approach.This study illustrates how SP survey questions can be formulated to provide responses on an ordered categorical scale and to estimate marginal rates of substitution between different attributes, which can be compared with those derived from discrete choice experiment (DCE) choices.The article highlights the potential value of considering alternative choice framings rather than relying solely on DCEs.</p>","PeriodicalId":49839,"journal":{"name":"Medical Decision Making","volume":"43 3","pages":"362-373"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10021117/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical Decision Making","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X221145048","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

Highlights: This article compares the relative preferences from stated preference (SP) questions requiring ordered categorical versus discrete choice responses. The approaches were contrasted for blood donation service characteristics that offer opportunities to donate blood.The estimates of relative preferences for alternative blood donation service characteristics were similar between the 2 forms of SP approach.This study illustrates how SP survey questions can be formulated to provide responses on an ordered categorical scale and to estimate marginal rates of substitution between different attributes, which can be compared with those derived from discrete choice experiment (DCE) choices.The article highlights the potential value of considering alternative choice framings rather than relying solely on DCEs.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

在一项对全血献血者的偏好调查中,有序分类选择与离散选择的比较。
重点:本文比较了要求有序分类和离散选择回答的陈述偏好(SP)问题的相对偏好。对提供献血机会的献血服务特点进行了对比。两种形式的SP方法对替代献血服务特征的相对偏好估计相似。本研究说明了如何制定SP调查问题,以提供有序分类量表上的回答,并估计不同属性之间的边际替代率,这可以与离散选择实验(DCE)选择的结果进行比较。本文强调了考虑替代选择框架而不是仅仅依赖dce的潜在价值。
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信