↓ Skip to main content

Including Opt-Out Options in Discrete Choice Experiments: Issues to Consider

Overview of attention for article published in The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, August 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#33 of 593)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
policy
2 policy sources
twitter
8 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
62 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
107 Mendeley
Title
Including Opt-Out Options in Discrete Choice Experiments: Issues to Consider
Published in
The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, August 2018
DOI 10.1007/s40271-018-0324-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Danny Campbell, Seda Erdem

Abstract

Providing an opt-out alternative in discrete choice experiments can often be considered to be important for presenting real-life choice situations in different contexts, including health. However, insufficient attention has been given to how best to address choice behaviours relating to this opt-out alternative when modelling discrete choice experiments, particularly in health studies. The objective of this paper is to demonstrate how to account for different opt-out effects in choice models. We aim to contribute to a better understanding of how to model opt-out choices and show the consequences of addressing the effects in an incorrect fashion. We present our code written in the R statistical language so that others can explore these issues in their own data. In this practical guideline, we generate synthetic data on medication choice and use Monte Carlo simulation. We consider three different definitions for the opt-out alternative and four candidate models for each definition. We apply a frequentist-based multimodel inference approach and use performance indicators to assess the relative suitability of each candidate model in a range of settings. We show that misspecifying the opt-out effect has repercussions for marginal willingness to pay estimation and the forecasting of market shares. Our findings also suggest a number of key recommendations for DCE practitioners interested in exploring these issues. There is no unique best way to analyse data collected from discrete choice experiments. Researchers should consider several models so that the relative support for different hypotheses of opt-out effects can be explored.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 107 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 107 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 32 30%
Researcher 17 16%
Student > Master 13 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 7%
Lecturer 4 4%
Other 11 10%
Unknown 22 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 18 17%
Social Sciences 11 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 9%
Environmental Science 9 8%
Engineering 6 6%
Other 23 21%
Unknown 30 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 22. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 March 2024.
All research outputs
#1,748,911
of 25,646,963 outputs
Outputs from The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research
#33
of 593 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#35,313
of 342,717 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research
#2
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,646,963 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 593 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 342,717 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 8 of them.