Keeping an eye on cost: What can eye tracking tell us about attention to cost information in discrete choice experiments?

Making Use of Technology to Improve Stated Preference Studies

The interest in quantifying stated preferences for health and healthcare continues to grow, as does the technology available to support and improve health preference studies. Technological advancements in the last two decades have implications and opportunities for preference researchers designing, administering, analysing, interpreting and applying the results of stated preference surveys. In this paper, we summarise selected technologies and how these can benefit a preference study. We discuss empirical evaluations of the technology in preference research, with examples from health where possible. The technologies reviewed include serious games, virtual reality, eye tracking, innovative formats and decision aids with values clarification components. We conclude with a critical reflection on the benefits and limitations of implementing (often costly) technology alongside stated preference studies.

Comparing heuristic valuation processes between health state valuation from child and adult perspectives

OBJECTIVES

Health state valuation assumes that respondents trade off between all aspects of choice tasks and maximize their utility. Yet, respondents may use heuristic valuation processes, i.e., strategies to simplify or avoid the trade-offs that are core to health state valuation. The objective of this study is to explore if heuristic valuation processes are more prevalent for valuation from a 10-year-old child's perspective compared to the use of an adult perspective.

METHODS

We reused existing data in which EQ-5D health states were valued from adult and child perspectives with composite time trade-off (cTTO) and discrete choice experiment (DCE) tasks. Our analyses focused on comparing completion time and responding patterns across both perspectives. We also explored how reflective of a set of heuristic strategies respondents' choices were in both perspectives.

RESULTS

We found no evidence for systematic differences in completion time across perspectives. Generally, we find different responding patterns in child perspectives, e.g., more speeding, dominance violations, and clustering of utilities at 1.0, 0.8, and 0. Very few heuristic strategies provide a coherent explanation for the observed DCE responses.

CONCLUSION

Our results provide some, albeit indirect, evidence for differences in heuristic valuation processes between perspectives, although not across all data sources. Potential effects of heuristic valuation processes, such as transfer of responsibility, may be identified through studying responding patterns in cTTO and DCE responses.