Severity or Incidence: Labeling Side-Effect Attributes in Discrete Choice Experiments

INTRODUCTION: While medicine regulation in many countries requires prescription drug labels to classify side effects based on their incidence, when eliciting preferences of patients, most discrete choice experiments (DCEs) group side effects by severity. This mismatch between the presentation of side-effect attribute labels in DCEs and real-world choice contexts may impact patients' choices, bias risk preferences, and threaten external validity. We investigate whether using incidence compared with severity labels impacts preferences and DCE reliability. METHODS: 1105 Dutch respondents aged 60 years or older completed a survey including a DCE on influenza vaccination uptake, receiving either severity (i.e., mild or severe) or incidence (i.e., very rare or very common) attribute labels summarizing the included side effects. We randomized only the attribute labels across respondents, all else was held constant. We evaluated the effect of severity versus incidence labels on maximum acceptable risks (MAR), heterogeneity in side-effect risk preferences, reliability, choice consistency, and predicted uptake. Choice data were analyzed using mixed and heteroscedastic logit models. Other survey questions pertained to demographics, experiences, and attitudes towards the included mild and severe side effects. RESULTS: Respondents' perceptions of side effect severity did not always correspond to the clinical severity labels. Using severity compared with incidence labels increased the MAR and preference heterogeneity for severe/very rare side effects. No significant differences with regards to MAR and preference heterogeneity for mild/very common side effects, reliability or choice consistency were detected. DISCUSSION: Using severity compared with incidence-based attribute labels impacted MAR estimates and preference heterogeneity, suggesting potential priming effects. However, predicted uptake was not significantly impacted. Still, respondents' severity perception may not align with conventional severity labels, and in many countries, categorizing side effects using incidence-based attribute labels may represent patients' real-world choice contexts more accurately.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Patient
Published
2026-04-28
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-026-00817-2
Primary Topic
Economic and Environmental Valuation
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Severity or Incidence: Labeling Side-Effect Attributes in Discrete Choice Experiments

Tom Van Ourti, Stella Maria Marceta, Jorien Veldwijk, Esther Wilhelmina de Bekker-Grob
Patient
Economic and Environmental Valuation
article

Severity or Incidence: Labeling Side-Effect Attributes in Discrete Choice Experiments

Tom Van Ourti, Stella Maria Marceta, Jorien Veldwijk, Esther Wilhelmina de Bekker-Grob
article en

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: While medicine regulation in many countries requires prescription drug labels to classify side effects based on their incidence, when eliciting preferences of patients, most discrete choice experiments (DCEs) group side effects by severity. This mismatch between the presentation of side-effect attribute labels in DCEs and real-world choice contexts may impact patients' choices, bias risk preferences, and threaten external validity. We investigate whether using incidence compared with severity labels impacts preferences and DCE reliability. METHODS: 1105 Dutch respondents aged 60 years or older completed a survey including a DCE on influenza vaccination uptake, receiving either severity (i.e., mild or severe) or incidence (i.e., very rare or very common) attribute labels summarizing the included side effects. We randomized only the attribute labels across respondents, all else was held constant. We evaluated the effect of severity versus incidence labels on maximum acceptable risks (MAR), heterogeneity in side-effect risk preferences, reliability, choice consistency, and predicted uptake. Choice data were analyzed using mixed and heteroscedastic logit models. Other survey questions pertained to demographics, experiences, and attitudes towards the included mild and severe side effects. RESULTS: Respondents' perceptions of side effect severity did not always correspond to the clinical severity labels. Using severity compared with incidence labels increased the MAR and preference heterogeneity for severe/very rare side effects. No significant differences with regards to MAR and preference heterogeneity for mild/very common side effects, reliability or choice consistency were detected. DISCUSSION: Using severity compared with incidence-based attribute labels impacted MAR estimates and preference heterogeneity, suggesting potential priming effects. However, predicted uptake was not significantly impacted. Still, respondents' severity perception may not align with conventional severity labels, and in many countries, categorizing side effects using incidence-based attribute labels may represent patients' real-world choice contexts more accurately.

Patient
Tinbergen Institute (NL), Erasmus University Rotterdam (NL)
Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek, Vereniging Trustfonds Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam
Openalex Percentile: Top 7%
Economic and Environmental Valuation
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.