Prosocial Behaviour and Antibiotic Resistance: Evidence from a Discrete Choice Experiment.

INTRODUCTION: The health of a community depends on the health of its individuals; therefore, individual health behaviour can implicitly affect the health of the entire community. This is particularly evident in the case of infectious diseases. Because the level of prosociality in a community might determine the effectiveness of health programmes, prosocial behaviour may be a crucial disease-control resource. This study aimed to extend the literature on prosociality and investigate the role of altruism in antibiotic decision making. METHODS: A discrete choice experiment was conducted to assess the influence of altruism on the general public's preferences regarding antibiotic treatment options. The survey was completed by 378 Swedes. Latent class analysis models were used to estimate antibiotic treatment characteristics and preference heterogeneity. A three-class model resulted in the best model fit, and altruism significantly impacted preference heterogeneity. RESULTS: Our findings suggest that people with higher altruism levels had more pronounced preferences for treatment options with lower contributions to antibiotic resistance and a lower likelihood of treatment failure. Furthermore, altruism was statistically significantly associated with sex, education, and health literacy. CONCLUSIONS: Antibiotic awareness, trust in healthcare systems, and non-discriminatory priority setting appear to be structural elements conducive to judicious and prosocial antibiotic behaviour. This study suggests that prosocial messages could help to decrease the demand for antibiotic treatments.

Can healthcare choice be predicted using stated preference data? The role of model complexity in a discrete choice experiment about colorectal cancer screening.

INTRODUCTION: The validity of discrete choice experiments (DCEs) is crucial to its usage in healthcare decision-making, but there is only a limited number of health contexts in which external validity is demonstrated. This study aims to assess the internal and external validity of the DCE in the context of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, and gather insights into the discrepancy between stated and revealed preferences. METHODS: Stated and revealed preferences were elicited on an individual level from Dutch residents eligible for CRC screening in a DCE and a field experiment, respectively (N = 568). To identify the determinants of CRC screening participation and their relative importance, five random utility maximisation models that varied in complexity were used. We assessed the accuracy with which the models based on stated preferences predict individual-level screening choice in a holdout task (internal validity) and in the actual screening choice (external validity). Insights into the discrepancy between stated and revealed preferences were gathered by comparing groups of respondents. RESULTS: Our findings show high internal and external validity. Choices could be accurately predicted for 95% of the respondents in the holdout task, and 90% in the actual screening choice. When scale and preference heterogeneity were taken into account model fit improved; individual-level prediction accuracy slightly increased for the holdout task but not for the actual screening choice. Respondents for whom stated preferences matched revealed preferences were generally in better health and found the GP's support for their screening decision more important. DISCUSSION: Evidence was found that revealed preferences can be predicted accurately on an individual level. Incorporating heterogeneity improved internal validity but not external validity. Differences between stated and revealed preferences can be attributed to respondents' health and the support of their GP. We suggest researchers to continue investigating the internal and external validity of discrete choice experiments, and the role of model complexity.

Two for the price of one: If moving beyond traditional single-best discrete choice experiments, should we use best-worst, best-best or ranking for preference elicitation?

This study undertook a head-to-head comparison of best-worst, best-best and ranking discrete choice experiments (DCEs) to help decide which method to use if moving beyond traditional single-best DCEs. Respondents were randomized to one of three preference elicitation methods. Rank-ordered (exploded) mixed logit models and respondent-reported data were used to compare methods and first and second choices. First choices differed from second choices and preferences differed between elicitation methods, even beyond scale and scale dynamics. First choices of best-worst had good choice consistency, scale dynamics and statistical efficiency, but this method's second choices performed worst. Ranking performed best on respondent-reported difficulty and preference; best-best's second choices on statistical efficiency. All three preference elicitation methods improve efficiency of data collection relative to using first choices only. However, differences in preferences between first and second choices challenge moving beyond single-best DCE. If nevertheless doing so, best-best and ranking are preferred over best-worst DCE.

Preference Variation: Where Does Health Risk Attitude Come Into the Equation?

OBJECTIVES: Decisions about health often involve risk, and different decision makers interpret and value risk information differently. Furthermore, an individual's attitude toward health-specific risks can contribute to variation in health preferences and behavior. This study aimed to determine whether and how health-risk attitude and heterogeneity of health preferences are related. METHODS: To study the association between health-risk attitude and preference heterogeneity, we selected 3 discrete choice experiment case studies in the health domain that included risk attributes and accounted for preference heterogeneity. Health-risk attitude was measured using the 13-item Health-Risk Attitude Scale (HRAS-13). We analyzed 2 types of heterogeneity via panel latent class analyses, namely, how health-risk attitude relates to (1) stochastic class allocation and (2) systematic preference heterogeneity. RESULTS: Our study did not find evidence that health-risk attitude as measured by the HRAS-13 distinguishes people between classes. Nevertheless, we did find evidence that the HRAS-13 can distinguish people's preferences for risk attributes within classes. This phenomenon was more pronounced in the patient samples than in the general population sample. Moreover, we found that numeracy and health literacy did distinguish people between classes. CONCLUSIONS: Modeling health-risk attitude as an individual characteristic underlying preference heterogeneity has the potential to improve model fit and model interpretations. Nevertheless, the results of this study highlight the need for further research into the association between health-risk attitude and preference heterogeneity beyond class membership, a different measure of health-risk attitude, and the communication of risks.

Psychometric evaluation of the Health-Risk Attitude Scale (HRAS-13): assessing the reliability, dimensionality and validity in the general population and a patient population.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess the reliability, dimensionality and validity of the self-report questionnaire Health-Risk Attitude Scale (HRAS-13) in a sample of the general population and a patient population. METHODS: Sample 1 (n = 930) was recruited from the general population aged 18-65 years in the Netherlands. Sample 2 (n = 486) was recruited from the population of knee and hip osteoarthritis patients aged 45 and over, also from the Netherlands. Reliability was assessed using Cronbach's alpha, average inter-item correlation and item-total correlations. Dimensionality was examined using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), principal component analysis (PCA) and bifactor analysis. Validity was assessed by performing known-group analysis using ANOVA tests. RESULTS: Cronbach's alphas of the HRAS-13 were 0.73 in sample 1 and 0.69 in sample 2. Reliability and dimensionality analyses differed slightly between the samples, and suggest that a short version of the HRAS may capture a general component of health-risk attitude. Validity assessment of known groups showed that the HRAS-13 and a likely HRAS-6 distinguished between subgroups of respondents based on most of the assessed characteristics, but not all. DISCUSSION: These findings are a preliminary indication that the HRAS-13 is a promising multidimensional instrument for measuring health-risk attitude. However, further research in various samples on decisions where health risks play a role is warranted to confirm the dimensionality of the HRAS-13 and the items to be retained in a full or a shorter version.

Productivity of Working at Home and Time Allocation Between Paid Work, Unpaid Work and Leisure Activities During a Pandemic.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The COVID-19 pandemic and the measures taken by governments to contain it have affected many aspects of the daily lives of citizens. This study aimed to describe changes in the productivity of paid work and time allocation to paid and unpaid work and leisure resulting from working at home during the pandemic. METHODS: A sample of 851 people from the Netherlands who had paid work (≥ 24 h/week) and worked at least 4 hours per week extra at home because of lockdown measures completed a questionnaire during the first COVID-19 lockdown (April 2020). Respondents reported time spent on paid and unpaid work and leisure before and during the lockdown. Productivity was measured in terms of quantity and quality of paid work. RESULTS: On average, respondents spent less time (14%) on paid work and productivity decreased 5.5%. Changes in productivity were associated with the age of children, net income and having a separate home office. Respondents spent more time on unpaid work (27%) and leisure (11%). Women spent more time on unpaid work in absolute but not in relative terms. People with a partner and with children spent more time on unpaid work and less time on leisure. CONCLUSIONS: Productivity of paid work decreased, and people reallocated time between paid and unpaid work and leisure during the first COVID-19 lockdown. Changes in time allocation and productivity differed across subgroups. If working at home becomes more common, future research should focus on the long-term impact on productivity and mental and physical health.

What Is Next for Patient Preferences in Health Technology Assessment? A Systematic Review of the Challenges.

BACKGROUND: Integrating patient preferences in Health Technology Assessment (HTA) is argued to improve uptake, adherence, and patient satisfaction. However, how to elicit and incorporate these preferences in HTA in a systematic and scientifically valid manner is subject to debate. OBJECTIVE: This article provides a systematic review of the challenges to integrating patient preferences in HTA that have been raised in the literature about patient preferences in HTA. METHODS: A systematic review of articles published between 2013 and 2017 addressing challenges to the integration of patient preferences in HTA was conducted in 7 databases. All issues with respect to the integration of patient preferences in HTA were extracted and divided into 5 categories: conceptual, normative, procedural, methodological, and practical issues. The issues were ranked according to how often they were mentioned. RESULTS: Of 2147 retrieved articles, 67 were included in the analysis. Thirty-seven unique research issues were identified. In the majority of the articles, methodological issues were posed (82%), followed by procedural (73%), normative (51%), practical (24%), and conceptual (9%) issues. Frequently posed methodological issues concerned preference heterogeneity and choice of method. Common procedural issues concerned how to evaluate the impact of preference studies and their degree of being evidence based. CONCLUSIONS: This article provides an overview of issues with respect to the integration of patient preferences in HTA procedures. Most issues were of a methodological or procedural nature; yet, the large number of different issues points to the overall importance of further researching the different aspects concerned with patient preferences in HTA. Through its ranking of how many articles mention particular issues, this article proposes an implicit research agenda.