The effect of perceived risk of false diagnosis on preferences for COVID-19 testing: Evidence from the United States

Tomás Rossetti and Ricardo A. Daziano

Journal of choice modelling, 2024, vol. 50, issue C

Abstract: At-home antigen (rapid) tests have been successfully deployed in many countries to quickly detect COVID-19 cases. Whereas antigen tests have multiple advantages, they tend to have higher rates of false diagnosis than polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests. Since individuals tend to process risk non-linearly, an ad-hoc method is required to adequately assess preferences for test features. In this paper, we propose a methodology based on random utility maximization and elements of prospect theory that produces willingness-to-pay estimates for different test attributes while accounting for differences between objective and perceived probabilities of false positive or negative results. We use this methodology to analyze stated preference data for COVID-19 tests in the United States. Results show that, on average, low probabilities were underestimated and mid-range probabilities were overestimated. We also found that false positive results were more burdensome than false negative outcomes, which shows that there is a degree of willful ignorance (Ehrich and Irwin, 2005) in our sample. Finally, our findings indicate that respondents tended to prefer tests with faster turn-around times and less invasive collection methods. In a case study, we show how our results can be used to assess pricing for a given test.

Keywords: Willingness to pay; COVID-19 testing; False diagnosis; Bayesian econometrics; Discrete choice (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2024
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1755534523000568
Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:eee:eejocm:v:50:y:2024:i:c:s1755534523000568

DOI: 10.1016/j.jocm.2023.100455

Access Statistics for this article

Journal of choice modelling is currently edited by S. Hess and J.M. Rose

More articles in Journal of choice modelling from Elsevier
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Catherine Liu ().