Abstract
Abstract
Objectives
Understanding young people’s preferences for healthcare is critical for reducing the negative effect of undesirable choices. This review aims to synthesise the evidence obtained from discrete choice experiments (DCEs) eliciting young people’s preferences for healthcare interventions and service deliveries, specifically, to (1) examine the methodology, including a selection of attributes and levels, experimental design, estimation procedure and validity; (2) evaluate similarities, differences and rigour of designs to the general population DCEs; and, (3) compare the DCEs’ application to the seven health priority areas defined by the World Health Organisation (WHO).
Methods
A systematic review searching Medline, EconLIT, PsychINFO, Scopus, and Web of Science was performed up until May 2021. Inclusion criteria: a DCE, eliciting young peoples’ preferences (10–24 years of age), on a healthcare-related topic defined by WHO, peer-reviewed, full-text available in English. A bespoke checklist was used to assess the methodological quality of the included studies.
Results
Eighteen DCE studies were included in the review, exploring interventions and service in sexual and reproductive health (n = 9; 50%), smoking cessation (n = 4; 22%), mental health (n = 1), nutrition (n = 1), unintentional injuries (n = 1), vaccination against severe but rare diseases (n = 1); and diabetes (n = 1). Compared to the general population, DCEs eliciting young people’s preferences had a high proportion of monetary measures and a smaller number of choices per respondent with the overwhelming number of surveys using fractional factorial design. The majority of studies were of moderate quality (50–75% of the criteria met).
Conclusions
While identified DCEs touched on most health priority areas, the scope was limited. The conduct and reporting of DCEs with young people could be improved by including the state-of-the-art design, estimation procedures and analysis.
Funder
Central Queensland University
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Health Policy,Economics, Econometrics and Finance (miscellaneous)
Reference40 articles.
1. Ryan, M., K. Gerard, and M. Amaya-Amaya, eds. Using Discrete Choice Experiments to Value Health and Health Care. Vol. 11. 2008: Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands. 256.
2. Lancsar, E., Louviere, J.: Conducting discrete choice experiments to inform healthcare decision making: a user’s guide. Pharmacoeconomics 26(8), 661–677 (2008)
3. Louviere, J., D. Hensher, and J. Swait, Stated Choice Models — Analysis and Application. 2000, Cambridge. U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
4. Hensher, D.A., Rose, J., Greene, W.H.: The implications on willingness to pay of respondents ignoring specific attributes. Transportation 32(3), 203–222 (2005)
5. NRC, Committee on Improving the Health, Safety, and Well-Being of Young Adults, ed. S.C. Bonnie RJ, Breiner H, editors. 2015, Washington, DC: Board on Children, Youth, and Families; Institute of Medicine (IoM); National Research Council (NRC), National Academies Press.