Benefit–Risk or Risk–Benefit Trade-Offs? Another Look at Attribute Ordering Effects in a Pilot Choice Experiment

Sebastian Heidenreich, Andrea Phillips-Beyer (), Bruno Flamion, Melissa Ross, Jaein Seo and Kevin Marsh
Additional contact information
Sebastian Heidenreich: Evidera Inc.
Andrea Phillips-Beyer: Innovus Consulting
Bruno Flamion: Idorsia Pharmaceuticals Ltd
Melissa Ross: Evidera Inc.
Jaein Seo: Evidera Inc.
Kevin Marsh: Evidera Inc.

The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, 2021, vol. 14, issue 1, No 6, 65-74

Abstract: Abstract Background Studies recommend randomising the order of attributes in discrete choice experiments (DCEs) to avoid bias; however, in a benefit–risk setting, this may increase the cognitive burden of respondents who compare the benefits and risks of treatments, or may affect their decision-making process. Based on these concerns, this paper explored attribute ordering effects in a benefit–risk DCE. Method Attribute ordering effects were explored in a large pilot DCE relating to the medical treatment of insomnia. Participants were randomised to one of three presentation orders: (1) benefits were presented before risks (BR); (2) risks were presented before benefits (RB); (3) all attributes were randomised (RN). For the RB and BR presentation orders, attributes were randomised within benefits and risks. Responses were assessed in three ways. First, variations in respondents’ self-reported choice certainty were obtained. Second, variations in failure rates of stability and dominance tests were calculated. Third, a heteroscedastic error component model tested for differences in choice consistency across the three attribute orderings. Results The final analysis included 156 respondents (RN: 54; BR: 49; RB: 53). No differences were found between the presentation orders with respect to stated choice certainty, or the proportion of respondents failing either the dominance or stability test. However, deterministic attribute grouping was associated with higher choice consistency. Conclusion To increase choice consistency, DCE attributes should be randomised within logical groups that may be further randomised to reduce the risk of ordering effects.

Date: 2021
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1)

Downloads: (external link)
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40271-020-00475-y Abstract (text/html)
Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

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:spr:patien:v:14:y:2021:i:1:d:10.1007_s40271-020-00475-y

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.springer.com/economics/journal/40271

DOI: 10.1007/s40271-020-00475-y

Access Statistics for this article

The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research is currently edited by Christopher I. Carswell

More articles in The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research from Springer, International Academy of Health Preference Research
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().