The impact of health vs. non-health goals on individuals' lifestyle program choices: a discrete choice experiment approach.

BACKGROUND: Goals play an important role in the choices that individuals make. Yet, there is no clear approach of how to incorporate goals in discrete choice experiments. In this paper, we present such an approach and illustrate it in the context of lifestyle programs. Furthermore, we investigate how non-health vs. health goals affect individuals' choices via non-goal attributes. METHODS: We used an unlabeled discrete choice experiment about lifestyle programs based on two experimental conditions in which either a non-health goal (i.e., looking better) or a health goal (i.e., increasing life expectancy) was presented to respondents as a fixed attribute level for the goal attribute. Respondents were randomly distributed over the experimental conditions. Eventually, we used data from 407 Dutch adults who reported to be overweight (n = 212 for the non-health goal, and n = 195 for the health goal). RESULTS: Random parameter logit model estimates show that the type of goal significantly (p < 0.05) moderates the effect that the attribute diet has on lifestyle program choice, but that this is not the case for the attributes exercise per week and expected weight loss. CONCLUSIONS: A flexible diet is more important for individuals with a non-health goal than for individuals with a health goal. Therefore, we advise policy makers to use information on goal interactions for developing new policies and communication strategies to target population segments that have different goals. Furthermore, we recommend researchers to consider the impact of goals when designing discrete choice experiments.

Exploring Outcomes to Consider in Economic Evaluations of Health Promotion Programs: What Broader Non-Health Outcomes Matter Most?

BACKGROUND: Attention is increasing on the consideration of broader non-health outcomes in economic evaluations. It is unknown which non-health outcomes are valued as most relevant in the context of health promotion. The present study fills this gap by investigating the relative importance of non-health outcomes in a health promotion context. METHOD: We investigated the relative importance of ten non-health outcomes of health promotion programs not commonly captured in QALYs. Preferences were elicited from a sample of the Dutch general public (N = 549) by means of a ranking task. These preferences were analyzed using Borda scores and rank-ordered logit models. RESULTS: The relative order of preference (from most to least important) was: self-confidence, insights into own (un)healthy behavior, perceived life control, knowledge about a certain health problem, social support, relaxation, better educational achievements, increased labor participation and work productivity, social participation, and a reduction in criminal behavior. The weight given to a particular non-health outcome was affected by the demographic variables age, gender, income, and education. Furthermore, in an open question, respondents mentioned a number of other relevant non-health outcomes, which we classified into outcomes relevant for the individual, the direct social environment, and for society as a whole. CONCLUSION: The study provides valuable insights in the non-health outcomes that are considered as most important by the Dutch general population. Ideally, researchers should include the most important non-health outcomes in economic evaluations of health promotion.

The effect of presenting information about invasive follow-up testing on individuals' noninvasive colorectal cancer screening participation decision: results from a discrete choice experiment.

OBJECTIVES: Many national colorectal cancer screening campaigns have a similar structure. First, individuals are invited to take a noninvasive screening test, and, second, in the case of a positive screening test result, they are advised to undergo a more invasive follow-up test. The objective of this study was to investigate how much individuals' participation decision in noninvasive screening is affected by the presence or absence of detailed information about invasive follow-up testing and how this effect varies over screening tests. METHODS: We used a labeled discrete choice experiment of three noninvasive colorectal cancer screening types with two versions that did or did not present respondents with detailed information about the possible invasive follow-up test (i.e., colonoscopy) and its procedure. We used data from 631 Dutch respondents aged 55 to 75 years. Each respondent received only one of the two versions (N = 310 for the invasive follow-up test information specification version, and N = 321 for the no-information specification version). RESULTS: Mixed logit model results show that detailed information about the invasive follow-up test negatively affects screening participation decisions. This effect can be explained mainly by a decrease in choice shares for the most preferred screening test (a combined stool and blood sample test). Choice share simulations based on the discrete choice experiment indicated that presenting invasive follow-up test information decreases screening participation by 4.79%. CONCLUSIONS: Detailed information about the invasive follow-up test has a negative effect on individuals' screening participation decisions in noninvasive colorectal cancer screening campaigns. This result poses new challenges for policymakers who aim not only to increase uptake but also to provide full disclosure to potential screening participants.

Preferences for potential innovations in non-invasive colorectal cancer screening: A labeled discrete choice experiment for a Dutch screening campaign.

BACKGROUND: The introduction of innovative non-invasive screening tests (e.g. tests based on stool and blood samples or both) may be a solution to increase colorectal cancer (CRC) screening uptake. However, preferences for these non-invasive screening tests have not been investigated in great detail yet. The purpose of this article therefore is to elicit individuals' preferences for different non-invasive screening tests in a Dutch screening campaign context. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We investigate preferences by means of a labeled discrete choice experiment. Data of 815 individuals, aged 55-75 years, are used in the analysis. RESULTS: Multinomial logit model analysis showed that the combi-test is generally preferred over the blood-test and the (currently available) stool-test. Furthermore, besides the large effect of screening test type, there are significant differences in preference depending on participants' socio-demographic background. Finally, the analysis showed a significant positive effect on screening test choice for the attributes sensitivity, risk reduction, and level of evidence and a non-significant effect for the attribute unnecessary follow-up test. CONCLUSION: Introducing new non-invasive screening tests that are based on a combination of stool and blood samples (or blood sample only) has the potential to increase CRC screening participation compared to the current standard stool-based test.

Combining individual-level discrete choice experiment estimates and costs to inform health care management decisions about customized care: the case of follow-up strategies after breast cancer treatment.

OBJECTIVE: Customized care can be beneficial for patients when preferences for health care programs are heterogeneous. Yet, there is little guidance on how individual-specific preferences and cost data can be combined to inform health care decisions about customized care. Therefore, we propose a discrete choice experiment-based approach that illustrates how to analyze the cost-effectiveness of customized (and noncustomized) care programs to provide information for hospital managers. METHODS: We exploit the fact that choice models make it possible to determine whether preference heterogeneity exists and to obtain individual-specific parameter estimates. We present an approach of how to combine these individual-specific parameter estimates from a random parameter model (mixed logit model) with cost data to analyze the cost-effectiveness of customized care and demonstrate our method in the case of follow-up after breast cancer treatment. RESULTS: We found that there is significant preference heterogeneity for all except two attributes of breast cancer treatment follow-up and that the fully customized care program leads to higher utility and lower costs than the current standardized program. Compared with the single alternative program, the fully customized care program has increased benefits and higher costs. Thus, it is necessary for health care decision makers to judge whether the use of resources for customized care is cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS: Decision makers should consider using the results obtained from our methodological approach when they consider implementing customized health care programs, because it may help to find ways to save costs and increase patient satisfaction.

Paying more for faster care? Individuals' attitude toward price-based priority access in health care.

Increased competition in the health care sector has led hospitals and other health care institutions to experiment with new access allocation policies that move away from traditional expert based allocation of care to price-based priority access (i.e., the option to pay more for faster care). To date, little is known about individuals' attitude toward price-based priority access and the evaluation process underlying this attitude. This paper addresses the role of individuals' evaluations of collective health outcomes as an important driver of their attitude toward (price-based) allocation policies in health care. The authors investigate how individuals evaluate price-based priority access by means of scenario-based survey data collected in a representative sample from the Dutch population (N = 1464). They find that (a) offering individuals the opportunity to pay for faster care negatively affects their evaluations of both the total and distributional collective health outcome achieved, (b) however, when health care supply is not restricted (i.e., when treatment can be offered outside versus within the regular working hours of the hospital) offering price-based priority access affects total collective health outcome evaluations positively instead of negatively, but it does not change distributional collective health outcome evaluations. Furthermore, (c) the type of health care treatment (i.e., life saving liver transplantation treatment vs. life improving cosmetic ear correction treatment - priced at the same level to the individual) moderates the effect of collective health outcome evaluations on individuals' attitude toward allocation policies. For policy makers and hospital managers the results presented in this article are helpful because they provide a better understanding of what drives individuals' preferences for health care allocation policies. In particular, the results show that policies based on the "paying more for faster care" principle are more attractive to the general public when treatment takes place outside the regular working hours of a hospital.