4.3 Article

Stated versus revealed preferences: An approach to reduce bias

期刊

HEALTH ECONOMICS
卷 30, 期 5, 页码 1095-1123

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/hec.4246

关键词

causal inference; choice experiments; external validity; hypothetical bias; revealed preferences; stated preferences

资金

  1. Health Services and Delivery Research Programme [13/54/62]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

By combining large-scale routine data with SP survey responses, this study aims to more accurately predict actual behavioral preferences and reduce hypothetical bias. Through an experimental design that contrasts pilot SP survey responses with data on RPs, the study estimates hypothetical bias and improves the accuracy of survey design.
Stated preference (SP) survey responses may not predict actual behavior, leading to hypothetical bias. We developed an approach that harnesses large-scale routine data to help SP surveys provide more accurate estimates of revealed preferences (RPs), within a study which elicited preferences for alternative changes to the blood service in England. The SP survey responses were used to predict the mean number of annual whole blood donations. Ex ante, the iterative survey design estimated hypothetical bias by contrasting pilot SP survey responses (N = 1254), with individually linked data on RPs, to inform the main SP survey design (N = 25,187). Ex post, the analysis recognized mediation of the relationship between SP and RP when blood donation is deferred. The pilot survey reported that donors' intended donation frequency of 3.2 (men) and 2.6 (women) times per year, exceeded their actual frequency by 41% and 30% respectively. Choice scenario attributes for the main SP survey were then modified, and over-prediction subsequently decreased to 34% for men and 16% for women. The mediating effect of deferrals explained 29% (men) and 86% (women) of the residual discrepancy between SP and RP. Future studies can use this approach to reduce hypothetical bias, and provide more accurate predictions for decision-making.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据