离散选择实验中的选择一致性:计算能力重要吗?(VIH-2023-0494.R2)。

IF 4.9 2区 医学 Q1 ECONOMICS Value in Health Pub Date : 2024-07-31 DOI:10.1016/j.jval.2024.07.001
Mesfin G Genie, Nabin Poudel, Francesco Paolucci, Surachat Ngorsuraches
{"title":"离散选择实验中的选择一致性:计算能力重要吗?(VIH-2023-0494.R2)。","authors":"Mesfin G Genie, Nabin Poudel, Francesco Paolucci, Surachat Ngorsuraches","doi":"10.1016/j.jval.2024.07.001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This study investigated the relationship between numeracy skills and choice consistency in discrete choice experiments (DCEs).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A DCE was conducted to explore patients' preferences for kidney transplantation in Italy. Patients completed the DCE and answered three-item numeracy questions. A Heteroskedastic Multinomial Logit (HMNL) model was used to investigate the effect of numeracy on choice consistency.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Higher numeracy skills were associated with greater choice consistency, increasing the scale to 1.63 (p<0.001), 1.39 (p<0.001), and 1.18 (p<0.001) for patients answering 3/3, 2/3, and 1/3 questions correctly, respectively, compared to those with no correct answers. This corresponded to 63%, 39%, and 18% more consistent choices, respectively. Accounting for choice consistency resulted in varying willingness-to-wait (WTW) estimates for kidney transplant attributes. Patients with the lowest numeracy (0/3) were willing to wait approximately 42 months [95% CI: 29.37, 54.68] for standard infectious risk, compared to 33 months [95% CI: 28.48, 38.09] for 1/3, 28 months [95% CI: 25.13, 30.32] for 2/3, and 24 months [95% CI: 20.51, 27.25] for 3/3 correct answers. However, WTW differences for an additional year of graft survival and neoplastic risk were not statistically significant across numeracy levels. Supplementary analyses of two additional DCEs on COVID-19 vaccinations and rheumatoid arthritis, conducted online, supported these findings: higher numeracy skills were associated with more consistent choices across different disease contexts and survey formats.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The findings suggested that combining patients with varying numeracy skills could bias WTW estimates, highlighting the need to consider numeracy in DCE data analysis and interpretation.</p>","PeriodicalId":23508,"journal":{"name":"Value in Health","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Choice Consistency in Discrete Choice Experiments: Does Numeracy Skill Matter? (VIH-2023-0494.R2).\",\"authors\":\"Mesfin G Genie, Nabin Poudel, Francesco Paolucci, Surachat Ngorsuraches\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jval.2024.07.001\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This study investigated the relationship between numeracy skills and choice consistency in discrete choice experiments (DCEs).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A DCE was conducted to explore patients' preferences for kidney transplantation in Italy. Patients completed the DCE and answered three-item numeracy questions. A Heteroskedastic Multinomial Logit (HMNL) model was used to investigate the effect of numeracy on choice consistency.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Higher numeracy skills were associated with greater choice consistency, increasing the scale to 1.63 (p<0.001), 1.39 (p<0.001), and 1.18 (p<0.001) for patients answering 3/3, 2/3, and 1/3 questions correctly, respectively, compared to those with no correct answers. This corresponded to 63%, 39%, and 18% more consistent choices, respectively. Accounting for choice consistency resulted in varying willingness-to-wait (WTW) estimates for kidney transplant attributes. Patients with the lowest numeracy (0/3) were willing to wait approximately 42 months [95% CI: 29.37, 54.68] for standard infectious risk, compared to 33 months [95% CI: 28.48, 38.09] for 1/3, 28 months [95% CI: 25.13, 30.32] for 2/3, and 24 months [95% CI: 20.51, 27.25] for 3/3 correct answers. However, WTW differences for an additional year of graft survival and neoplastic risk were not statistically significant across numeracy levels. Supplementary analyses of two additional DCEs on COVID-19 vaccinations and rheumatoid arthritis, conducted online, supported these findings: higher numeracy skills were associated with more consistent choices across different disease contexts and survey formats.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The findings suggested that combining patients with varying numeracy skills could bias WTW estimates, highlighting the need to consider numeracy in DCE data analysis and interpretation.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23508,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Value in Health\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Value in Health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2024.07.001\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Value in Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2024.07.001","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

研究目的本研究调查了离散选择实验(DCE)中计算能力与选择一致性之间的关系:在意大利进行了一项离散选择实验,以探讨患者对肾移植的偏好。患者在完成离散选择实验的同时回答了三个算术问题。采用异方差多项式Logit(HMNL)模型研究计算能力对选择一致性的影响:结果:计算能力越高,选择一致性越大,量表增加到 1.63(p结论:研究结果表明,将不同计算能力的患者组合在一起,可以提高选择一致性:研究结果表明,将具有不同计算能力的患者合并在一起可能会使WTW估计值出现偏差,这突出说明了在DCE数据分析和解释中考虑计算能力的必要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Choice Consistency in Discrete Choice Experiments: Does Numeracy Skill Matter? (VIH-2023-0494.R2).

Objectives: This study investigated the relationship between numeracy skills and choice consistency in discrete choice experiments (DCEs).

Methods: A DCE was conducted to explore patients' preferences for kidney transplantation in Italy. Patients completed the DCE and answered three-item numeracy questions. A Heteroskedastic Multinomial Logit (HMNL) model was used to investigate the effect of numeracy on choice consistency.

Results: Higher numeracy skills were associated with greater choice consistency, increasing the scale to 1.63 (p<0.001), 1.39 (p<0.001), and 1.18 (p<0.001) for patients answering 3/3, 2/3, and 1/3 questions correctly, respectively, compared to those with no correct answers. This corresponded to 63%, 39%, and 18% more consistent choices, respectively. Accounting for choice consistency resulted in varying willingness-to-wait (WTW) estimates for kidney transplant attributes. Patients with the lowest numeracy (0/3) were willing to wait approximately 42 months [95% CI: 29.37, 54.68] for standard infectious risk, compared to 33 months [95% CI: 28.48, 38.09] for 1/3, 28 months [95% CI: 25.13, 30.32] for 2/3, and 24 months [95% CI: 20.51, 27.25] for 3/3 correct answers. However, WTW differences for an additional year of graft survival and neoplastic risk were not statistically significant across numeracy levels. Supplementary analyses of two additional DCEs on COVID-19 vaccinations and rheumatoid arthritis, conducted online, supported these findings: higher numeracy skills were associated with more consistent choices across different disease contexts and survey formats.

Conclusions: The findings suggested that combining patients with varying numeracy skills could bias WTW estimates, highlighting the need to consider numeracy in DCE data analysis and interpretation.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Value in Health
Value in Health 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
6.90
自引率
6.70%
发文量
3064
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Value in Health contains original research articles for pharmacoeconomics, health economics, and outcomes research (clinical, economic, and patient-reported outcomes/preference-based research), as well as conceptual and health policy articles that provide valuable information for health care decision-makers as well as the research community. As the official journal of ISPOR, Value in Health provides a forum for researchers, as well as health care decision-makers to translate outcomes research into health care decisions.
期刊最新文献
Analytical Methods for Comparing Uncontrolled Trials with External Controls from Real-World Data: a Systematic Literature Review and Comparison to European Regulatory and Health Technology Assessment Practice. Author Reply to "Cost-of/Burden-of-Illness Studies: Steps Backward?" Author Reply. Table of Contents Editorial Board
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1