Valuing the Benefits of Weight Loss Programs: An Application of the Discrete Choice Experiment

Abstract

ROUX, LARISSA, CHRISTINA UBACH, CAM DONALDSON, AND MANDY RYAN. Valuing the benefits of weight loss programs: an application of the discrete choice experiment. Obes Res. 2004;12:1342-1351. Objective: Obesity is a leading health threat. Determination of optimal therapies for long-term weight loss remains a challenge. Evidence suggests that successful weight loss depends on the compliance of weight loss program participants with their weight loss efforts. Despite this, little is known regarding the attributes influencing such compliance. The purpose of this study was to assess, using a discrete choice experiment (DCE), the relative importance of weight loss program attributes to its participants and to express these preferences in terms of their willingness to pay for them. Research Methods: A DCE survey explored the following weight loss program attributes in a sample of 165 overweight adults enrolled in community weight loss programs: cost, travel time required to attend, extent of physician involvement (e.g., none, monthly, every 2 weeks), components (e.g., diet, exercise, behavior change) emphasized, and focus (e.g., group, individual). The rate at which participants were willing to trade among attributes and the willingness to pay for different configurations of combined attributes were estimated using regression modeling.Results: All attributes investigated appeared to be statistically significant. The most important unit change was "program components emphasized" (e.g., moving from diet only to diet and exercise). Discussion: The majority of participants were willing to pay for weight loss programs that reflected their preferences. The DCE tool was useful in quantifying and understanding individual preferences in obesity management and provided information that could help to maximize the efficiency of existing weight loss programs or the design of new programs.

Does Convenience Matter in Health Care Delivery? A Systematic Review of Convenience-Based Aspects of Process Utility

“…Studies identified and reviewed were published between 1996 and 2013, and came from Canada (n ¼ 7) [13][14][15][16][17][18][19], the United States (n ¼ 3) [20][21][22], the United Kingdom (n ¼ 3) [23][24][25], Scotland (n ¼ 3) [26][27][28], Australia (n ¼ 3) [29][30][31], Sweden (n ¼ 2) [32,33], Denmark (n ¼ 1) [34], Germany (n ¼ 1) [35], Italy (n ¼ 1) [36], and Spain (n ¼ 1) [37]. Two studies had multinational perspectives [38,39].…”

Exploring non-health outcomes of health promotion: The perspective of participants in a lifestyle behaviour change intervention

“…attitude, occupation), which are also referred to as non-health (or process) outcomes, were not considered. Previous research examining preferences towards such outcomes suggests that these are also important to participants of HP interventions [40][41][42]. Fourth, we did not address relative importance of the identified non-health outcomes compared to each other and to health outcomes captured by EQ5D-based QALYs (i.e.…”

Choice Experiments to Quantify Preferences for Health and Healthcare: State of the Practice

“…Numerous preference studies have been applied to service provision, therapy characteristics and adherence. For example, various studies on asthma, immunizations, insulin therapy, multiple myeloma, HIV, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and the healthcare utilization of breast screening have used choice experiments [4,5,[7][8][9][10][11][12]. Recent studies also have used choice-experiment weighting factors for health-state utilities [13,14].…”