Consistency between stated and revealed preferences: a discrete choice experiment and a behavioural experiment on vaccination behaviour compared

BMC Medical Research Methodology

G Ardine de Wit³  Yolanda WM van Weert¹  Liesbeth Mollema¹  Hester de Melker¹  Jorien Veldwijk³  Irene A Harmsen²  Mattijs S Lambooij⁴ 

[1] National Institute of Health and the Environment, Centre for Infectious Disease Control, Bilthoven, BA, The Netherlands;Maastricht University, Work & Social Psychology, Maastricht 6200, MD, The Netherlands;Julius Centre for Health Sciences and Primary Care University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht 3508, GA, The Netherlands;National Institute of Health and the Environment, Centre for Prevention and Health Services Research, Bilthoven, BA, The Netherlands

关键词: Hepatitis B;    Vaccination;    Revealed preferences;    Stated preferences;    Predictive value;    DCE;   

Others  :  1143574
DOI  :  10.1186/s12874-015-0010-5

 received in 2013-09-12, accepted in 2015-02-20,  发布年份 2015

【 摘 要 】

Background

Discrete Choice Experiments (DCEs) are increasingly used in studies in healthcare research but there is still little empirical evidence for the predictive value of these hypothetical situations in similar real life circumstances. The aim of this paper is to compare the stated preferences in a DCE and the accompanying questionnaire with the revealed preferences of young parents who have to decide whether to vaccinate their new born child against hepatitis B.

Methods

A DCE asking parents to decide in which scenario they would be more inclined to vaccinate their child against hepatitis B. The stated preference was estimated by comparing the per respondent utility of the most realistic scenario in which parents could choose to vaccinate their child against hepatitis B, with the utility of the opt-out, based on the mixed logit model from the DCE. This stated preference was compared with the actual behaviour of the parents concerning the vaccination of their new born child.

Results

In 80% of the respondents the stated and revealed preferences corresponded. The positive predictive value is 85% but the negative predictive value is 26%.

Conclusions

The predictive value of the DCE in this study is satisfactory for predicting the positive choice but not for predicting the negative choice. However, the behaviour in this study is exceptional in the sense that most people chose to vaccinate. Future studies should focus on behaviours with a larger variance in the population.

【 授权许可】

   
2015 Lambooij et al.; licensee BioMed Central.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]De Bekker-Grob, E.W., M. Ryan, and K. Gerard, Discrete choice experiments in health economics: A review of the literature. Health Economics. 2010
• [2]Cheng J, Pullenayegum E, Marshall DA, Marshall JK, Thabane L. An empirical comparison of methods for analyzing correlated data from a discrete choice survey to elicit patient preference for colorectal cancer screening. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2012;12(15). doi:10.1186/1471-2288-12-15
• [3]Kruijshaar ME, Essink-Bot ML, Donkers B, Looman CWN, Siersema PD, Steyerberg EW. A labelled discrete choice experiment adds realism to the choices presented: preferences for surveillance tests for Barrett esophagus. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2009;9(31). doi:10.1186/1471-2288-9-31
• [4]De Bekker-Grob EW, Hofman R, Donkers B, van Ballegooijen M, Helmerhorst TJM, Raat H, Korfage IJ: Girls’ preferences for HPV vaccination: A discrete choice experiment. Vaccine 2010, 28:6692-6697.
• [5]Brown DS, Johnson FR, Poulosa C, Messonnier ML: Mothers’ preferences and willingness to pay for vaccinating daughters against human papillomavirus. Vaccine 2010, 28:1702-1708.
• [6]Johnson FR, Mohamed AF, Özdemira S, Marshall DA, Phillipse KA: How does cost matter in health-care discrete-choice experiments? Health Economics 2011, 20:323-330. doi:10.1002/hec.1591
• [7]Cascetta E: Random Utility Theory. In Transportation Systems Analysis: models and applications. Edited by Cascetta E. Springer, New York; 2009:89-167.
• [8]Louviere JJ, Hensher DA, Swait JD: Stated choice methods. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge; 2000.
• [9]Ryan M: A comparison of stated preferencemethods for estimating monetary values. Health Econ 2004, 13:291-6.
• [10]Ding M: An incentive-aligned mechanism for conjoint analysis. J Mark Res 2007, XLIV:214-23.
• [11]Hensher DA: Hypothetical bias, choice experiments and willingness to pay. Transportation Res B 2009, 44:735-52.
• [12]Blumenschein K, Joannesson M, Yokoyama K, Freeman P: Hypothetical versus real willingness to pay in the health care sector. J Health Econ 2001, 20:441-457.
• [13]Clarke PM: Testing the convergent validity of the contingent valuation and travel cost methods in valuing the benefits of health care. Health Econ 2001, 11(2):117-27.
• [14]Bults M, Beaujean DJ, de Zwart O, Kok G, van Empelen P, van Steenbergen JE et al. Perceived risk, anxiety, and behavioural responses of the general public during the early phase of the Influenza A (H1N1) pandemic in the Netherlands: results of three consecutive online surveys. BMC Public Health. 2011;11(e2). doi:10.1186/1471-2458-11-2
• [15]Sodoyer SC, Paulussen TGW, Smit H, Mollema L, Oomen P, Hoving C, van Steenbergen JE: N. I. f. P. H. a. t. Environment: Acceptability of universal infant hepatitis B vaccination among parents in the Netherlands. In Poster on European Society for Paediatric Infectious Diseases conference (Vol. 727). National Institution for Public Health and the Environment, The Hague, The Netherlands; 2011.
• [16]Hontelez JA, Hahné SJ, Oomen P, de Melker H: Parental attitude towards childhood HBV vaccination in The Netherlands. Vaccine 2010, 28(4):1015-1020.
• [17]Psyma: Survey regarding the Perception of Vaccines and Vaccinations. International Summary Report. Psyma International Medical Marketing Research, Rückersdorf/Nürnberg (Germany); 2004.
• [18]Paulussen TGW, Hoekstra F, Lanting CI, Buijs GB, Hirasing RA: Determinants of Dutch parents’ decisions to vaccinate their child. Vaccine 2006, 24:644-51.
• [19]Rondy M, van Lier A, van de Kasteele J, de Melker H: Determinants for HPV vaccine uptake in the Netherlands: A multilevel study. Vaccine 2009, 28:2070-2075.
• [20]Van Keulen HM, Fekkes M, Otten W, Van der Pal S, Kocken P, Ruiter R, et al.: Onderzoek naar de HPV-vaccinatiebereidheid bij moeders en dochters naar aanleiding van de inhaalcampagne in Nederland. TNO, Netherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific Research, Leiden; 2010.
• [21]Sturm LA, Mays RM, Zimet GD: Parental beliefs and decision making about child and adolescent immunization: from polio to sexually transmitted infections. Dev Behav Pediatr 2005, 26(6):441-52.
• [22]Harmsen IA, Lambooij MS, Ruiter RA, Mollema L, Veldwijk J, van Weert YJ, de Melker HE: Psychosocial determinants of parents’ intention to vaccinate their newborn child against hepatitis B. Vaccine 2012, 30(32):4771-7.
• [23]Ryan M, Gerard K, Amaya-Amaya M: Using Discrete Choice Experiments to Value Health and Health Care. In The Economics of Non-Market Goods and Resources. Edited by Bateman IJ. Springer, Dordrecht; 2008.
• [24]Akobeng AK: Understanding diagnostic tests 1: sensitivity, specificity and predictive values. Acta Paediatr 2006, 96:338-41.
• [25]Ruijs WLM, Hautvast JLA, van der Velden K, de Vos S, Knippenberg H, Hulscher MELJ. Religious subgroups influencing vaccination coverage in the Dutch Bible belt: an ecological study. BMC Public Health. 2011;11(102). doi:10.1186/1471-2458-11-102.
• [26]Ruijs WLM, Hautvast JLA, van IJzendoorn G, van Ansem WJC, van der Velden K, Hulscher MEJL. How orthodox protestant parents decide on the vaccination of their children: a qualitative study. BMC Public Health. 2012;12(408). doi:10.1186/1471-2458-12-408
• [27]Woonink F: Objections against vaccination. National Institute of Public Health and Environment, Bilthoven, the Netherlands; 2009.
• [28]Feinstein AR, Cicchetti DV: High agreement but low kappa. I. The problems of two paradoxes. J Clin Epidemiol 1990, 43:543-9.
• [29]Feinstein AR, Cicchetti DV: High agreement but low kappa. II. Resolving the paradoxes. J Clin Epidemiol 1990, 43:551-8.
• [30]de Bekker-Grob EW, Ryan M, Gerard K: Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature. Health Econ 2012, 21:145-72.
• [31]Ryan M, Watson V: Comparing welfare estimates from payment card contingent valuation and discrete choice experiments. Health Econ 2009, 18:389-401.
• [32]Brazell JD, Diener CG, Karniouchina E, William L, Moore WL, Severin V, Uldry PF: The no-choice option and dual response choice designs. Mark Lett 2006, 17:255-268. doi:10.1007/s11002-006-7943-8
• [33]National Institute of Public Health and the Environment: Helft 12-jarige meisjes haalt HPV-vaccinatie (Half of 12 year old girls get HPV vaccination). National Institute of Health and the Environment, Bilthoven; 2012.