Literature DB >> 18620460

Conducting discrete choice experiments to inform healthcare decision making: a user's guide.

Emily Lancsar1, Jordan Louviere.   

Abstract

Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) are regularly used in health economics to elicit preferences for healthcare products and programmes. There is growing recognition that DCEs can provide more than information on preferences and, in particular, they have the potential to contribute more directly to outcome measurement for use in economic evaluation. Almost uniquely, DCEs could potentially contribute to outcome measurement for use in both cost-benefit and cost-utility analysis. Within this expanding remit, our intention is to provide a resource for current practitioners as well as those considering undertaking a DCE, using DCE results in a policy/commercial context, or reviewing a DCE. We present the fundamental principles and theory underlying DCEs. To aid in undertaking and assessing the quality of DCEs, we discuss the process of carrying out a choice study and have developed a checklist covering conceptualizing the choice process, selecting attributes and levels, experimental design, questionnaire design, pilot testing, sampling and sample size, data collection, coding of data, econometric analysis, validity, interpretation and welfare and policy analysis. In this fast-moving area, a number of issues remain on the research frontier. We therefore outline potentially fruitful areas for future research associated both with DCEs in general, and with health applications specifically, paying attention to how the results of DCEs can be used in economic evaluation. We also discuss emerging research trends. We conclude that if appropriately designed, implemented, analysed and interpreted, DCEs offer several advantages in the health sector, the most important of which is that they provide rich data sources for economic evaluation and decision making, allowing investigation of many types of questions, some of which otherwise would be intractable analytically. Thus, they offer viable alternatives and complements to existing methods of valuation and preference elicitation.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18620460     DOI: 10.2165/00019053-200826080-00004

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics        ISSN: 1170-7690            Impact factor:   4.981


  49 in total

1.  QALYs and the integration of claims in health-care rationing.

Authors:  P Anand
Journal:  Health Care Anal       Date:  1999

2.  Public preferences for the allocation of donor liver grafts for transplantation.

Authors:  J Ratcliffe
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  2000-03       Impact factor: 3.046

3.  Analysing public preferences for cancer screening programmes.

Authors:  D Gyrd-Hansen; J Søgaard
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  2001-10       Impact factor: 3.046

4.  Conjoint analysis. The cost variable: an Achilles' heel?

Authors:  Ulla Slothuus Skjoldborg; Dorte Gyrd-Hansen
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  2003-06       Impact factor: 3.046

5.  An experiment on simplifying conjoint analysis designs for measuring preferences.

Authors:  Tara Maddala; Kathryn A Phillips; F Reed Johnson
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  2003-12       Impact factor: 3.046

6.  Deleting 'irrational' responses from discrete choice experiments: a case of investigating or imposing preferences?

Authors:  Emily Lancsar; Jordan Louviere
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  2006-08       Impact factor: 3.046

7.  A comparison of approaches to estimating confidence intervals for willingness to pay measures.

Authors:  Arne Risa Hole
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  2007-08       Impact factor: 3.046

8.  Using conjoint analysis to assess women's preferences for miscarriage management.

Authors:  M Ryan; J Hughes
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  1997 May-Jun       Impact factor: 3.046

9.  Developing attributes and levels for discrete choice experiments using qualitative methods.

Authors:  Joanna Coast; Sue Horrocks
Journal:  J Health Serv Res Policy       Date:  2007-01

10.  Best--worst scaling: What it can do for health care research and how to do it.

Authors:  Terry N Flynn; Jordan J Louviere; Tim J Peters; Joanna Coast
Journal:  J Health Econ       Date:  2006-05-16       Impact factor: 3.883

View more
  411 in total

1.  Jordan Louviere, PhD: Honoring a Pioneer in the Study of Patient and Citizen Choice.

Authors:  Terry Flynn
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2009-06-01       Impact factor: 3.883

2.  Using best-worst scaling choice experiments to measure public perceptions and preferences for healthcare reform in australia.

Authors:  Jordan J Louviere; Terry N Flynn
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2010-12-01       Impact factor: 3.883

3.  Conjoint Analysis Applications in Health - How are Studies being Designed and Reported?: An Update on Current Practice in the Published Literature between 2005 and 2008.

Authors:  Deborah Marshall; John F P Bridges; Brett Hauber; Ruthanne Cameron; Lauren Donnalley; Ken Fyie; F Reed Johnson
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2010-12-01       Impact factor: 3.883

4.  Using conjoint analysis and choice experiments to estimate QALY values: issues to consider.

Authors:  Terry N Flynn
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2010       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 5.  Discrete choice experiments of pharmacy services: a systematic review.

Authors:  Caroline Vass; Ewan Gray; Katherine Payne
Journal:  Int J Clin Pharm       Date:  2016-06

6.  Health-related quality of life in Parkinson's: impact of 'off' time and stated treatment preferences.

Authors:  Cicely Kerr; Emily J Lloyd; Charlotte E Kosmas; Helen T Smith; James A Cooper; Karissa Johnston; Emma McIntosh; Andrew J Lloyd
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2015-12-01       Impact factor: 4.147

7.  Patient preferences for an oral anticoagulant after major orthopedic surgery: results of a german survey.

Authors:  Thomas Wilke
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2009-03-01       Impact factor: 3.883

8.  Quality versus quantity in end-of-life choices of cancer patients and support persons: a discrete choice experiment.

Authors:  Amy Waller; Rob Sanson-Fisher; Scott D Brown; Laura Wall; Justin Walsh
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2018-05-03       Impact factor: 3.603

9.  Stated Uptake of Physical Activity Rewards Programmes Among Active and Insufficiently Active Full-Time Employees.

Authors:  Semra Ozdemir; Marcel Bilger; Eric A Finkelstein
Journal:  Appl Health Econ Health Policy       Date:  2017-10       Impact factor: 2.561

Review 10.  Wearable Devices in Health Monitoring from the Environmental towards Multiple Domains: A Survey.

Authors:  Mostafa Haghi; Saeed Danyali; Sina Ayasseh; Ju Wang; Rahmat Aazami; Thomas M Deserno
Journal:  Sensors (Basel)       Date:  2021-03-18       Impact factor: 3.576

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.