Objective: To empirically test the impact of allowing respondents time to think (TTT) about their choice options on the outcomes of a discrete choice experiments (DCE). Methods: In total, 613 participants of the Swedish CArdioPulmonary bioImage Study (SCAPIS) completed a DCE questionnaire that measured their preferences for receiving secondary findings of a genetic test. A Bayesian D-efficient design with 60 choice tasks divided over 4 questionnaires was used. Each choice task contained 2 scenarios with 4 attributes: type of disease, disease penetrance probability, preventive opportunities, and effectiveness of prevention. Respondents were randomly allocated to the TTT or no TTT (NTTT) sample. Latent class models (LCMs) were estimated to determine attribute-level values and their relative importance. In addition, choice certainty, attribute-level interpretation, choice consistency, and potential uptake rates were compared between samples. Results: In the TTT sample, 92% of the respondents (245 of 267) indicated they used the TTT period to (1) read the information they received (72%) and (2) discuss with their family (24%). In both samples, respondents were very certain about their choices. A 3-class LCM was fitted for both samples. Preference reversals were found for 3 of the 4 attributes in one class in the NTTT sample (34% class-membership probability). Relative importance scores of the attributes differed between the 2 samples, and significant scale effects indicating higher choice consistency in TTT sample were found. Conclusions: Offering respondents TTT influences decision making and preferences. Developers of future DCEs regarding complex health-related decisions are advised to consider this approach to enhance the validity of the elicited preferences.

, , ,
Value in Health
Institute for Medical Technology Assessment (iMTA)

Veldwijk, J., Viberg Johansson, J, Donkers, B., & De Bekker-Grob, EW. (2020). Mimicking Real-Life Decision Making in Health: Allowing Respondents Time to Think in a Discrete Choice Experiment. Value in Health. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/1765/130452