ArticleHealth economics review2025
Calculating willingness-to-pay with discrete cost and random coefficients in discrete choice experiments.
Article in Health economics review, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Consumer Preference and Willingness to Pay for Nutraceuticals to Prevent Cardiovascular Diseases in Thailand: A Discrete Choice Experiment.Nutrients · 2026Article
- Treatment Preferences for Acute Myeloid Leukemia in Harbin, China: A Discrete Choice Experiment Among Patients, Caregivers, and Hematologists.The patient · 2026Article
- Preferences for rapid implementation science: a real-time discrete choice experiment.Implementation science communications · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThis study provides step-by-step guidance to calculate willingness-to-pay (WTP) in discrete choice experiments that involve discrete cost. It highlights the limitations of assuming a linear disutility for cost in WTP calculation.
methodsFive mixed-logit models were considered. Log-normal distributions were applied to cost parameters for four models under the assumption that utility (disutility) for cost should be negative (positive) or at least non-positive (non-negative) for all individuals. Piecewise linear utility in cost, using an iterative process, was proposed to calculate the WTP for the discrete cost models. Individual level simulations - considering individual random preference - were conducted to obtain the median WTP across all individuals and compared with the population mean WTP. A case study exploring preferences for colorectal cancer screening was used to demonstrate these models and methods.
resultsModels utilising discrete cost exhibited higher disutilities in cost at lower costs relative to models using continuous cost, but lower disutilities in cost at higher costs. Modelling using continuous cost tended to overestimate the WTP at low costs and underestimate the WTP at high costs. Adding a quadratic cost term only partially solved the problem, as the quadratic functional form may not capture the sharp change in preference for cost at low-cost levels. Divergent policy recommendations emerged when comparing results from continuous and discrete cost models. Although WTP was calculated using the population mean and the median across individuals, no systematic pattern was identified.
conclusionThis study highlights the importance of incorporating discrete cost and selecting appropriate distribution assumptions for cost parameters to accurately derive the WTP.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.