Skip to main content
Quality in Health Care : QHC logoLink to Quality in Health Care : QHC
. 2001 Sep;10(Suppl 1):i55–i60. doi: 10.1136/qhc.0100055..

Use of discrete choice experiments to elicit preferences

M Ryan, A Bate, C Eastmond, A Ludbrook
PMCID: PMC1765744  PMID: 11533440

Abstract

This paper considers the application of discrete choice experiments for eliciting preferences in the delivery of health care. Drawing upon the results from a recently completed systematic review, the paper summarises the application of this technique in health care. It then presents a case study applying the technique to rheumatology outpatient clinics. 200 patients were questioned about the importance of six attributes: staff seen (junior doctor or specialist nurse); time in waiting area; continuity of contact with same staff; provision of a phone-in/advice service; length of consultation; and change in pain levels. The systematic review indicated that discrete choice experiments have been applied to a wide number of areas and a number of methodological issues have been addressed. Consistent with this literature, the case study found evidence of both rationality and theoretical validity of responses. The approach was used to establish the relative importance of different attributes, how individuals trade between these attributes, and overall benefit scores for different clinic configurations. The value of attributes was estimated in terms of time, and this was converted to a monetary measure using the value of waiting time for public transport. Discrete choice experiments represent a potentially useful instrument for eliciting preferences. Future methodological work should explore issues related to the experimental design of the study, methods of data collection and analysis, and satisfaction with the economic axioms of the instrument. Collaborative work with psychologists and qualitative researchers will prove useful in this research agenda.

Key Words: discrete choice experiments; patient preference; decision making; patient-caregiver communication

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (132.5 KB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Diener A., O'Brien B., Gafni A. Health care contingent valuation studies: a review and classification of the literature. Health Econ. 1998 Jun;7(4):313–326. doi: 10.1002/(sici)1099-1050(199806)7:4<313::aid-hec350>3.0.co;2-b. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Hill J., Bird H. A., Harmer R., Wright V., Lawton C. An evaluation of the effectiveness, safety and acceptability of a nurse practitioner in a rheumatology outpatient clinic. Br J Rheumatol. 1994 Mar;33(3):283–288. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/33.3.283. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Hill J. The expanding role of the nurse in rheumatology. Br J Rheumatol. 1997 Apr;36(4):410–412. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/36.4.410. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Johnson F. R., Banzhaf M. R., Desvousges W. H. Willingness to pay for improved respiratory and cardiovascular health: a multiple-format, stated-preference approach. Health Econ. 2000 Jun;9(4):295–317. doi: 10.1002/1099-1050(200006)9:4<295::aid-hec520>3.0.co;2-d. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Ryan M., Farrar S. Using conjoint analysis to elicit preferences for health care. BMJ. 2000 Jun 3;320(7248):1530–1533. doi: 10.1136/bmj.320.7248.1530. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Ryan M., Hughes J. Using conjoint analysis to assess women's preferences for miscarriage management. Health Econ. 1997 May-Jun;6(3):261–273. doi: 10.1002/(sici)1099-1050(199705)6:3<261::aid-hec262>3.0.co;2-n. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Quality in Health Care : QHC are provided here courtesy of BMJ Publishing Group

RESOURCES