In this study, the authors demonstrate how mixed logit analysis of discrete choice experiment (DCE) data can provide information about unobserved preference heterogeneity. Their application investigates unobserved heterogeneity in men’s preferences for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) treatment. They use a DCE to elicit preferences for seven characteristics of BPH treatment: time to symptom improvement, sexual and nonsexual treatment side effects, risks of acute urinary retention and surgery, cost of treatment, and reduction in prostate size. They investigate the importance of these characteristics and the trade-offs men are willing to make between them. Preferences are elicited from a sample of 100 men attending an outpatient clinic in Ireland. The authors find all treatment characteristics are significant determinants of treatment choice. There is significant preference heterogeneity in the population for four treatment characteristics: time to symptom improvement, treatment reducing prostate size, risk of surgery, and sexual side effects. The importance of preference heterogeneity at the policy level within the context of shared decision making is discussed.
Emberton M., Andriole G., de la Rosette J., Djavan B., Hoefner K., Vela Navarrete R., et al. Benign prostatic hyperplasia: a progressive disease of aging men. Urology. 2003;61:267-273.
2.
Pickard R., Emberton M., Neal D.The management of men with acute urinary retention. Br J Urol . 1998;81:712-20.
3.
Stoevelaar H. , Van De Beek C., Casparie A., McDonnell J., Nijs H.Treatment choice for benign prostatic hyperplasia: a matter of urologist preference?J Urol. 1999;161:133-138.
4.
Garraway W., Lee R., Collins G.High prevalence of benign prostatic hypertrophy in the community. Lancet. 1991;338:469-471. 5 .
5.
Zaric GSThe impact of ignoring population heterogeneity when Markov models are used in cost-effectiveness analysis. Med Decis Making. 2003;23:379-96.
6.
Sculpher M., Gafni A.Recognizing diversity in public preferences: the use of preference sub-groups in cost-effectivness analysis. Health Econ. 2001;10:317-24.
7.
Ryan M., Farrar S.Using conjoint analysis to elicit preferences for health care. BMJ. 2000;320:1530-3.
8.
Ryan M., Gerard K.Using discrete choice experiments in health economics: moving forward. In: Scott T, Maynard A, Elliott R, eds. Advances in Health Economics. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons;2003.
9.
Ryan M., Gerard K.Using discrete choice experiments to value health care programmes: current practice and future research reflections. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2003;2:55-64.
10.
Fiebig D., Louviere J., Waldman D.Contemporary issues in modelling discrete choice experimental data in health economics. 2005; Available from: http://www.docs.fce.unsw.edu.au/economics/staff/DFIEBIG/ContemporaryissuesHEv120Apr05.pdf. Accessed 25. 08. 2008.
11.
Lancaster K.A new approach to consumer theory. J Political Econ. 1966;74:132-57.
12.
Ryan M., Gerard K., Amaya-Amaya M.Using Discrete Choice Experiments to Value Health and Health Care. Dordrecht: Springer; 2007.
13.
McIntosh E. , Ryan M.Using discrete choice experiments to derive welfare estimates for the provision of elective surgery: implications of discontinuous preferences. J Econ Psychol. 2002; 23:367-82.
14.
Scott A.Identifying and analysing dominant preferences in discrete choice experiments: an application in health care. J Econ Psychol. 2002;23:383-98.
15.
Hensher D., Greene W.The mixed logit model: the state of practice. Transportation . 2003;30:133-76.
16.
Train K.Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2003.
17.
Lancsar E., Hall J., King M., et al. Using discrete choice experiments to investigate subject preferences for preventive asthma medication. Respirology. 2007;12:127-36.
18.
Hall J., Fiebig D., King M., Hossain I., Louviere J.What influences participation in genetic carrier testing? Results from a discrete choice experiment. J Health Econ. 2006;25:520-37.
19.
Watson V., Ryan M., Brown CT, Barnett G., Ellis BW, Emberton M.Eliciting preferences for drug treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms associated with benign prostatic hyperplasia. J Urol. 2004;172(6 Part 1):2321-5.
20.
Fawzy A., Braun K., Lewis G., Gaffney M., Ice K., Dias N.Doxazosin in the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia in normotensive patients: a multicentre study. J Urol. 1995 ;154:105-109. 21.
21.
Lepor H.Phase III multicentre placebo-controlled study of tamsulosin in benign prostatic hyperplasia. Tamsulosin Investigation Group. Urology. 1998;51:892-900.
22.
Roehrborn C. , Boyle P., Nickel J., Hoefner K., Andriole G.Efficacy and safety of a dual inhibitor of 5-alpha-reductase types 1 and 2 (dutasteride) in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia. Urology. 2002;60:434-41.
23.
Bradley M.User’s Manual for the Speed Version 2.1 Stated Preference Experiment Editor and Designer. Hague: Hague Consulting Group; 1991.
24.
Hensher DA, Rose JM, Greene WHApplied Choice Analysis.A Primer. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2005.
25.
Barry M., Fowler F., Mulley A., Henderson J., Wennberg J.Patient reactions to a program designed to facilitate patient participation in treatment decisions for benign prostatic hyperplasia. Med Care. 1995;33:771-787.
Johnson NL, Kotz S., Kemp AWUnivariate Discrete Distributions. New York: Wiley; 1993.
28.
McFadden D.Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. In: Zarembka P, ed. Frontiers of Econometrics . New York: Academic Press; 1974.
29.
Roehrborn C. , Siami P., Barkin J., Damiao R., Montorsi F.POD-06.02: the effects of dutasteride, tamsulosin, and combination therapy on lower urinary tract symptoms and Qmax in men with BPH and prostatic enlargement: two-year results from the Combination of Avodart(R) and Tamsulosin (CombAT) study. Urology. 2007 ;70(3 Suppl 1):19. 29th Congress of the Société Internationale d’Urology. Podium Session POD-06.02.
30.
Roehrborn CG , Siami P., Barkin J., Damião R., Major-Walker K., Morrill B., et al. The effects of dutasteride, tamsulosin and combination therapy on lower urinary tract symptoms in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia and prostatic enlargement: 2-year results from the CombAT study. J Urol. 2008;179:616-621.
31.
Revelt D., Train K.Specific Taste Parameters and Mixed Logit.Working PaperNo. E00-274. Berkeley: Department of Economics, University of California; 2000.
32.
Greene WH, Hensher DAHeteroscedastic control for random coefficients and error components in mixed logit. Transportation Research Part E. 2007 ;43:610-623.
33.
Greene WH, Hensher DAA latent class model for discrete choice analysis: contrasts with mixed logit. Working Paper ITS-WP-02-08. Sydney: Institute of Transport Studies, University of Sydney and Monash University ; 2002.
34.
Gafni A.Willingness-to-pay as a measure of benefits: relevant questions in the context of public decisionmaking about health care programs. Med Care . 1991;29:1246-1252.
