Measuring Preferences for Health Care Interventions Using Conjoint Analysis: An Application to HIV Testing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine preferences for HIV test methods using conjoint analysis, a method used to measure economic preferences (utilities). DATA SOURCES: Self-administered surveys at four publicly funded HIV testing locations in San Francisco, California, between November 1999 and February 2000 (n = 365, 96 percent response rate). STUDY DESIGN: We defined six important attributes of HIV tests and their levels (location, price, ease of collection, timeliness/accuracy, privacy/anonymity, and counseling). A fractional factorial design was used to develop scenarios that consisted of combinations of attribute levels. Respondents were asked 11 questions about whether they would choose "Test A or B" based on these scenarios. DATA ANALYSIS: We used random effects probit models to estimate utilities for testing attributes. Since price was included as an attribute, we were able to estimate willingness to pay, which provides a standardized measure for use in economic evaluations. We used extensive analyses to examine the reliability and validity of the results, including analyses of: (1) preference consistency, (2) willingness to trade among attributes, and (3) consistency with theoretical predictions. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Respondents most preferred tests that were accurate/timely and private/anonymous, whereas they had relatively lower preferences for in-person counseling. Respondents were willing to pay an additional $35 for immediate, highly accurate results; however, they had a strong disutility for receiving immediate but less accurate results. By using conjoint analysis to analyze new combinations of attributes, we found that respondents would most prefer instant, highly accurate home tests, even though they are not currently available in the U.S. Respondents were willing to pay $39 for a highly accurate, instant home test. CONCLUSIONS: The method of conjoint analysis enabled us to estimate utilities for specific attributes of HIV tests as well as the overall utility obtained from various HIV tests, including tests that are under consideration but not yet available. Conjoint analysis offers an approach that can be useful for measuring and understanding the value of other health care goods, services, and interventions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.041 | 0.090 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".