Objective. To assess the feasibility and validity of using a discrete choice experiment format to elicit health preferences in adolescents by comparing illogical choices and choice-blindness rates between adults and adolescents; and to explore the relationship between personality traits and health-state choices. Methods. A convenience sample of adults and adolescents (12 to 17 y old) were recruited from around Chicago, USA. A personality inventory was administered, followed by pairwise comparisons of 6 health-state scenarios which asked each candidate to select their preferred choice. Health-state descriptions were based on a simplified 3-dimension version of the EQ-5D (mobility, pain, depression, each with 3 levels). For 2 scenarios, the respondent’s preferred choice was switched; if the respondent did not notice the switch they were considered “choice blind”. Logistic regression evaluated the association of personality, gender, and age with choice blindness and health-state choice. Results. Ninety-nine respondents were recruited (44% adults). Comparing adolescents to adults, there was no significant difference in the rate of illogical preferences (9% v. 12%) or in preferring dead to the worst health state (56% v. 64%) (P > 0.05). Choice-blindness rates were significantly higher in adolescents (35%) than adults (9%) (P < 0.01). The adjusted odds of choice blindness in adolescents was 6.6 (95% CI = 1.8 to 23.8; P = 0.004). Conscientiousness was significantly associated with health-state choice in 3 of the 6 models predicting health-state choice (using P < 0.1 as a threshold). Conclusions. The results of this exploratory study suggest it is feasible to conduct choice experiments in adolescents; however, adolescents are significantly more likely to demonstrate choice blindness. Psychological traits may be noteworthy predictors of health-state choices, with conscientiousness independently associated with several health-state choices.
BoyeKSMatzaLSFeenyDHJohnstonJABowmanLJordanJB. Challenges to time trade-off utility assessment methods: when should you consider alternative approaches?Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2014;14:437–50.
ThurstoneLL. A law of comparative judgment. Psychol Rev. 1927;34:273.
6.
AronsAMKrabbePF. Probabilistic choice models in health-state valuation research: background, theories, assumptions and applications. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2013;13:93–108.
7.
JohanssonPHallLTärningBSikströmSChaterN. Choice blindness and preference change: you will like this paper better if you (believe you) chose to read it!J Behav Decis Making. 2014;27:281–9.
8.
JohanssonPHallLSikströmSOlssonA. Failure to detect mismatches between intention and outcome in a simple decision task. Science. 2005;310:116–9.
9.
HallLJohanssonPTärningBSikströmSDeutgenT. Magic at the marketplace: Choice blindness for the taste of jam and the smell of tea. Cognition. 2010;117:54–61.
10.
FlynnKESmithMA. Personality and health care decision-making style. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 2007;62:P261–P7.
11.
GerlachGHerpertzSLöberS. Personality traits and obesity: a systematic review. Obes Rev. 2015;16:32–63.
12.
BruceJMHancockLMArnettPLynchS. Treatment adherence in multiple sclerosis: association with emotional status, personality, and cognition. J Behav Med. 2010;33:219–27.
13.
JohnOPSrivastavaS. The Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In: PervinLJohnOP eds. Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research. New York: Guilford;1999.
14.
GoslingSDRentfrowPJSwannWB. A very brief measure of the Big-Five personality domains. J Res Personal. 2003;37:504–28.
DevlinNJHansenPKindPWilliamsA. Logical inconsistencies in survey respondents’ health state valuations-a methodological challenge for estimating social tariffs. Health Econ. 2003;12:529–44.
17.
PatrickDLStarksHECainKCUhlmannRFPearlmanRA. Measuring preferences for health states worse than death. Med Decis Making. 1994;14:9–18.
18.
MacranSKindP. “Death” and the valuation of health-related quality of life. Med Care. 2001;39:217–27.
KellettM. Children as active researchers: a new research paradigm for the 21st century?2005. ESRC, UK. Available from: URL: http://oro.open.ac.uk/7539/1/.
21.
BirdSEWilliamsKKulaK. Preoperative acetaminophen vs ibuprofen for control of pain after orthodontic separator placement. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2007;132:504–10.
22.
UbelPARichardsonJMenzelP. Societal value, the person trade-off, and the dilemma of whose values to measure for cost-effectiveness analysis. Health Econ. 2000;9:127–36.
23.
CrumpRTBeverungLMLauRSierackiRNicholsonM. Reliability, validity, and feasibility of direct elicitation of children’s preferences for health states: A systematic review. Med Decis Making. 2016. DOI: 10.1177/0272989X16671925.
24.
RatcliffeJHuynhEChenG. Valuing the Child Health Utility 9D: Using profile case best worst scaling methods to develop a new adolescent specific scoring algorithm. Soc Sci Med. 2016;157:48–59.
25.
RatcliffeJHuynhEStevensKBrazierJSawyerMFlynnT. Nothing about us without us? A comparison of adolescent and adult health-state values for the child health utility-9D using profile case best-worst scaling. Health Econ. 2016;25:486–96.
26.
RatcliffeJFlynnTTerlichFStevensKBrazierJSawyerM. Developing adolescent-specific health state values for economic evaluation. Pharmacoeconomics. 2012;30:713–27.
27.
StevensK. Valuation of the child health utility 9D index. Pharmacoeconomics. 2012;30:729–47.
28.
Rivero-AriasO. Comparing adolescents and adult preferences to EQ-5D-Y health states using profile case best-worst scaling. In: 16th Biennial European Meeting of the Society for Medical Decision Making. Med Decis Making. 2016;36:E448–609.
29.
RatcliffeJCouznerLFlynnT. Valuing child health utility 9D health states with a young adolescent sample: A feasibility study to compare best-worst scaling discrete-choice experiment, standard gamble and time trade-off methods. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2011;9:15–27.
30.
ChapmanBPFranksPDubersteinPRJerantA. Differences between individual and societal health state valuations: any link with personality?Med Care. 2009;47:902–7.
31.
RyanMWatsonVEntwistleV. Rationalising the ‘irrational’: a think aloud study of discrete choice experiment responses. Health Econ. 2009;18:321–36.
