[go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/hlthec/v12y2003i6p479-491.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Conjoint analysis. The cost variable: an Achilles' heel?

Author

Listed:
  • Ulla Slothuus Skjoldborg
  • Dorte Gyrd‐Hansen
Abstract
This paper seeks to enlighten the readers on the potential complexities involved in including cost variables in conjoint analysis, with the aim of emphasising that interpretation of implicit WTP values should be tackled with caution. To illustrate the potential pitfalls, a large data set from a recent Danish study is applied. The data consists of 1991 interviews in which participants are required to perform three discrete choice tasks regarding choice of hospitals, and three choice tasks involving health‐care systems in general. Model comparisons are performed which test the effect of (1) the cost range applied and (2) the effect of including a dummy variable to represent the utility associated with payment per se. A wider cost range including higher payments is associated with lower parameter weights associated with the payment variable, and thus increased WTP values. Including a dummy variable to explain utility associated with payment per se has significant effects on the model incurring some of the other variables to become insignificant, and others to change sign. Results suggest that inclusion of a two‐dimensional structure to explain the relationship between cost and utility may avoid erroneous conclusions and give rise to significant changes in implicit WTP estimates. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Suggested Citation

  • Ulla Slothuus Skjoldborg & Dorte Gyrd‐Hansen, 2003. "Conjoint analysis. The cost variable: an Achilles' heel?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(6), pages 479-491, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:hlthec:v:12:y:2003:i:6:p:479-491
    DOI: 10.1002/hec.742
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.742
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/hec.742?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mandy Ryan & Jenny Hughes, 1997. "Using Conjoint Analysis to Assess Women's Preferences for Miscarriage Management," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 6(3), pages 261-273, May.
    2. Beggs, S. & Cardell, S. & Hausman, J., 1981. "Assessing the potential demand for electric cars," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 17(1), pages 1-19, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Mickael Bech & Trine Kjaer & Jørgen Lauridsen, 2011. "Does the number of choice sets matter? Results from a web survey applying a discrete choice experiment," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(3), pages 273-286, March.
    2. Andersson, Henrik & Hole, Arne Risa & Svensson, Mikael, 2016. "Valuation of small and multiple health risks: A critical analysis of SP data applied to food and water safety," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 41-53.
    3. Jon Helgheim Holte & Peter Sivey & Birgit Abelsen & Jan Abel Olsen, 2016. "Modelling Nonlinearities and Reference Dependence in General Practitioners' Income Preferences," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 25(8), pages 1020-1038, August.
    4. Sivey, Peter & Scott, Anthony & Witt, Julia & Joyce, Catherine & Humphreys, John, 2012. "Junior doctors’ preferences for specialty choice," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(6), pages 813-823.
    5. Angela Robinson & Judith Covey & Anne Spencer & Graham Loomes, 2007. "Are Some Deaths Worse Than Others? Results from a Discrete Choice Experiment," Working Papers 597, Queen Mary University of London, School of Economics and Finance.
    6. Milena Pavlova & Wim Groot & Godefridus Merode, 2005. "An Application of Rating Conjoint Analysis to Study the Importance of Quality-, Access- and Price-attributes to Health Care Consumers," Economic Change and Restructuring, Springer, vol. 37(3), pages 267-286, September.
    7. Michael Clark & Domino Determann & Stavros Petrou & Domenico Moro & Esther Bekker-Grob, 2014. "Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: A Review of the Literature," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 32(9), pages 883-902, September.
    8. Mandeville, Kate L. & Ulaya, Godwin & Lagarde, Mylène & Muula, Adamson S. & Dzowela, Titha & Hanson, Kara, 2016. "The use of specialty training to retain doctors in Malawi: A discrete choice experiment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 169(C), pages 109-118.
    9. Matthew Berman & Andrea Fenaughty, 2005. "Technology and managed care: patient benefits of telemedicine in a rural health care network," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(6), pages 559-573, June.
    10. Mandy Ryan & Karen Gerard & Gillian Currie, 2012. "Using Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics," Chapters, in: Andrew M. Jones (ed.), The Elgar Companion to Health Economics, Second Edition, chapter 41, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    11. Laura Ternent & Aki Tsuchiya, 2013. "A Note on the Expected Biases in Conventional Iterative Health State Valuation Protocols," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 33(4), pages 544-546, May.
    12. Mickael Bech & Dorte Gyrd‐Hansen, 2005. "Effects coding in discrete choice experiments," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(10), pages 1079-1083, October.
    13. Sever, Ivan & Verbič, Miroslav & Klarić Sever, Eva, 2019. "Cost attribute in health care DCEs: Just adding another attribute or a trigger of change in the stated preferences?," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 32(C), pages 1-1.
    14. Ebenezer Kwabena Tetteh & Steve Morris & Nigel Titcheneker-Hooker, 2017. "Discrete-choice modelling of patient preferences for modes of drug administration," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 7(1), pages 1-14, December.
    15. Esther W. de Bekker‐Grob & Mandy Ryan & Karen Gerard, 2012. "Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(2), pages 145-172, February.
    16. Angela Robinson & Judith Covey & Anne Spencer & Graham Loomes, 2007. "Are Some Deaths Worse Than Others? Results from a Discrete Choice Experiment," Working Papers 597, Queen Mary University of London, School of Economics and Finance.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. del Saz Salazar, Salvador & Hernandez Sancho, Francesc & Sala Garrido, Ramon, 2009. "Estimación del valor económico de la calidad del agua de un río mediante una doble aproximación: una aplicación de los principios económicos de la Directiva Marco del Agua," Economia Agraria y Recursos Naturales, Spanish Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 9(01), pages 1-27.
    2. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Hensher, David A., 2021. "The landscape of econometric discrete choice modelling research," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    3. Anna Merino, 2003. "Eliciting consumers preferences using stated preference discrete choice models: Contingent ranking versus choice experiment," Working Papers, Research Center on Health and Economics 705, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
    4. Milena Pavlova & Wim Groot & Godefridus Merode, 2005. "An Application of Rating Conjoint Analysis to Study the Importance of Quality-, Access- and Price-attributes to Health Care Consumers," Economic Change and Restructuring, Springer, vol. 37(3), pages 267-286, September.
    5. Dorte Gyrd‐Hansen & Jes Søgaard, 2001. "Analysing public preferences for cancer screening programmes," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 10(7), pages 617-634, October.
    6. Anna Merino, 2003. "Eliciting consumers preferences using stated preference discrete choice models: Contingent ranking versus choice experiment," Economics Working Papers 705, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
    7. Joachim Marti, 2012. "Assessing preferences for improved smoking cessation medications: a discrete choice experiment," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 13(5), pages 533-548, October.
    8. YingHua He & Thierry Magnac, 2022. "Application Costs and Congestion in Matching Markets," The Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 132(648), pages 2918-2950.
    9. Kumar, Sushil & Kant, Shashi, 2007. "Exploded logit modeling of stakeholders' preferences for multiple forest values," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(5), pages 516-526, January.
    10. Dickinson, David L. & Masclet, David & Peterle, Emmanuel, 2018. "Discrimination as favoritism: The private benefits and social costs of in-group favoritism in an experimental labor market," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 220-236.
    11. Ralph Stevens & Jennifer Alonso Garcia & Hazel Bateman & Arthur van Soest & Johan Bonekamp, 2022. "Saving preferences after retirement," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/342267, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    12. Barbara Baarsma, 2003. "The Valuation of the IJmeer Nature Reserve using Conjoint Analysis," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 25(3), pages 343-356, July.
    13. Julie Ratcliffe, 2000. "Public preferences for the allocation of donor liver grafts for transplantation," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 9(2), pages 137-148, March.
    14. Gopindra Sivakumar Nair & Sebastian Astroza & Chandra R. Bhat & Sara Khoeini & Ram M. Pendyala, 2018. "An application of a rank ordered probit modeling approach to understanding level of interest in autonomous vehicles," Transportation, Springer, vol. 45(6), pages 1623-1637, November.
    15. Kim, Junghun & Seung, Hyunchan & Lee, Jongsu & Ahn, Joongha, 2020. "Asymmetric preference and loss aversion for electric vehicles: The reference-dependent choice model capturing different preference directions," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(C).
    16. Bryam Paúl Lojano-Riera & Carlos Flores-Vázquez & Juan-Carlos Cobos-Torres & David Vallejo-Ramírez & Daniel Icaza, 2023. "Electromobility with Photovoltaic Generation in an Andean City," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(15), pages 1-16, July.
    17. Anoek Castelein & Dennis Fok & Richard Paap, 2020. "A multinomial and rank-ordered logit model with inter- and intra-individual heteroscedasticity," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 20-069/III, Tinbergen Institute.
    18. Zhang, Yong & Yu, Yifeng & Zou, Bai, 2011. "Analyzing public awareness and acceptance of alternative fuel vehicles in China: The case of EV," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(11), pages 7015-7024.
    19. Martin Wiegand, 2020. "Welfare Measurement and Poverty Targeting Based on Participatory Wealth Rankings," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 20-086/V, Tinbergen Institute.
    20. Darren Hudson & Karina Gallardo & Terry Hanson, 2005. "Hypothetical (Non)Bias In Choice Experiments: Evidence From Freshwater Prawns," Experimental 0503003, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:hlthec:v:12:y:2003:i:6:p:479-491. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jhome/5749 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.