Skip to main content

Table 3 Discrete choice model results and marginal effects by perspective

From: Criteria for priority setting of HIV/AIDS interventions in Thailand: a discrete choice experiment

   Perspectives
   Policy makers People living with HIV/AIDS Village Health Volunteers
Criteria Levels Coefficient
(95% CI)
(p-value) Marginal effect Coefficient
(95% CI)
(p-value) Marginal effect Coefficient
(95% CI)
(p-value) Marginal effect
Target group Child          
  Teen 1.049* (0.001) 0.183 0.135 (0.385) 0.030 0.830* (0.000) 0.181
   (0.445, 1.654)   (-0.169, 0.440)   (0.464, 1.196)  
  HiRrisk 1.153* (0.001) 0.199 0.022 (0.900) 0.005 0.314 (0.142) 0.069
   (0.502, 1.803)   (-0.323, 0.368)   (-0.105, 0.734)  
  Adults 0.023 (0.926) 0.004 -0.279 (0.065) -0.061 -0.249 (0.176) -0.054
   (-0.470, 0.517)   (-0.575, 0.017)   (-0.609, 0.112)  
Gender of target group Male          
  Female -0.256 (0.321) -0.043 0.082 (0.544) 0.018 0.196 (0.229) 0.043
   (-0.762, 0.250)   (-0.184, 0.348)   (-0.123, 0.514)  
  BothGen 0.266 (0.189) 0.045 1.132* (0.000) 0.255 0.724* (0.000) 0.161
   (-0.131, 0.663)   (0.911, 1.354)   (0.458, 0.990)  
Type of intervention HIV          
  AIDS -0.493* (0.019) -0.088 1.091* (0.000) 0.245 -0.476* (0.001) -0.105
   (-0.904, -0.081)   (0.869, 1.313)   (-0.744, -0.208)  
  Prevent 1.967* (0.000) 0.333 0.212 (0.116) 0.047 0.246 (0.137) 0.054
   (1.450, 2.485)   (-0.052, 0.476)   (-0.078, 0.569)  
Effectiveness LoEff          
  HiEff 1.983* (0.000) 0.385 0.627* (0.000) 0.140 1.185* (0.000) 0.275
   (1.643, 2.323)   (0.454, 0.800)   (0.973, 1.395)  
Quality of evidence Weak          
on effectiveness Strong 1.310* (0.000) 0.237 0.356* (0.000) 0.079 0.349* (0.001) 0.077
   (0.976, 1.645)   (0.183, 0.528)   (0.139, 0.560)  
Log likelihood -424.4532 -1434.3323 -963.3818
Pseudo R2 0.2747 0.0992 0.0984
Hosmer-Lemeshow chi-square (p-value) 1.36
(0.995)
2.79
(0.947)
1.87
(0.985)
  1. *Significant variables (p < 0.05)
  2. Likelihood ratio test (p < 0.000)