Insights from triangulation of two purchase choice elicitation methods to predict social decision making in healthcare

Whitty, Jennifer A., Rundle-Thiele, Sharyn R. and Scuffham, Paul A. (2012) Insights from triangulation of two purchase choice elicitation methods to predict social decision making in healthcare. Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, 10 2: 113-126. doi:10.2165/11597100-000000000-00000


Author Whitty, Jennifer A.
Rundle-Thiele, Sharyn R.
Scuffham, Paul A.
Title Insights from triangulation of two purchase choice elicitation methods to predict social decision making in healthcare
Journal name Applied Health Economics and Health Policy   Check publisher's open access policy
ISSN 1175-5652
1179-1896
Publication date 2012
Sub-type Article (original research)
DOI 10.2165/11597100-000000000-00000
Open Access Status
Volume 10
Issue 2
Start page 113
End page 126
Total pages 14
Place of publication Auckland, New Zealand
Publisher Adis International
Subject 2002 Cultural Studies
2719 Health Policy
Formatted abstract
Background: Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) and the Juster scale are accepted methods for the prediction of individual purchase probabilities. Nevertheless, these methods have seldom been applied to a social decisionmaking context.

Objective: To gain an overview of social decisions for a decision-making population through data triangulation, these two methods were used to understand purchase probability in a social decision-making context.

Methods: We report an exploratory social decision-making study of pharmaceutical subsidy in Australia. A DCE and selected Juster scale profiles were presented to current and past members of the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee and its Economic Subcommittee.

Results: Across 66 observations derived from 11 respondents for 6 different pharmaceutical profiles, there was a small overall median difference of 0.024 in the predicted probability of public subsidy (p = 0.003), with the Juster scale predicting the higher likelihood. While consistency was observed at the extremes of the probability scale, the funding probability differed over the mid-range of profiles. There was larger variability in the DCE than Juster predictions within each individual respondent, suggesting the DCE is better able to discriminate between profiles. However, large variation was observed between individuals in the Juster scale but not DCE predictions.

Conclusions: It is important to use multiple methods to obtain a complete picture of the probability of purchase or public subsidy in a social decisionmaking context until further research can elaborate on our findings. This exploratory analysis supports the suggestion that the mixed logit model, which was used for the DCE analysis, may fail to adequately account for preference heterogeneity in some contexts. 
Q-Index Code C1
Q-Index Status Provisional Code
Institutional Status Non-UQ

Document type: Journal Article
Sub-type: Article (original research)
Collection: School of Medicine Publications
 
Versions
Version Filter Type
Citation counts: Scopus Citation Count Cited 0 times in Scopus Article
Google Scholar Search Google Scholar
Created: Wed, 12 Mar 2014, 09:59:51 EST by Ms Kate Rowe on behalf of Scholarly Communication and Digitisation Service