Literature DB >> 21669364

Conjoint analysis applications in health--a checklist: a report of the ISPOR Good Research Practices for Conjoint Analysis Task Force.

John F P Bridges1, A Brett Hauber, Deborah Marshall, Andrew Lloyd, Lisa A Prosser, Dean A Regier, F Reed Johnson, Josephine Mauskopf.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The application of conjoint analysis (including discrete-choice experiments and other multiattribute stated-preference methods) in health has increased rapidly over the past decade. A wider acceptance of these methods is limited by an absence of consensus-based methodological standards.
OBJECTIVE: The International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) Good Research Practices for Conjoint Analysis Task Force was established to identify good research practices for conjoint-analysis applications in health.
METHODS: The task force met regularly to identify the important steps in a conjoint analysis, to discuss good research practices for conjoint analysis, and to develop and refine the key criteria for identifying good research practices. ISPOR members contributed to this process through an extensive consultation process. A final consensus meeting was held to revise the article using these comments, and those of a number of international reviewers.
RESULTS: Task force findings are presented as a 10-item checklist covering: 1) research question; 2) attributes and levels; 3) construction of tasks; 4) experimental design; 5) preference elicitation; 6) instrument design; 7) data-collection plan; 8) statistical analyses; 9) results and conclusions; and 10) study presentation. A primary question relating to each of the 10 items is posed, and three sub-questions examine finer issues within items.
CONCLUSIONS: Although the checklist should not be interpreted as endorsing any specific methodological approach to conjoint analysis, it can facilitate future training activities and discussions of good research practices for the application of conjoint-analysis methods in health care studies.
Copyright © 2011 International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21669364     DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2010.11.013

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Value Health        ISSN: 1098-3015            Impact factor:   5.725


  564 in total

1.  Consumer preferences for hearing aid attributes: a comparison of rating and conjoint analysis methods.

Authors:  John F P Bridges; Angela T Lataille; Christine Buttorff; Sharon White; John K Niparko
Journal:  Trends Amplif       Date:  2012-04-17

Review 2.  Discrete choice experiments of pharmacy services: a systematic review.

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

3.  Patients' preferences for osteoarthritis treatment: the value of stated-preference studies.

Authors:  Mickael Hiligsmann; Daniel Pinto; Elaine Dennison; Nasser Al-Daghri; Charlotte Beaudart; Jaime Branco; Olivier Bruyère; Philip G Conaghan; Cyrus Cooper; Gabriel Herrero-Beaumont; Famida Jiwa; Willem Lems; Rene Rizzoli; Thierry Thomas; Nicola Veronese; Jean-Yves Reginster
Journal:  Aging Clin Exp Res       Date:  2019-01-04       Impact factor: 3.636

4.  Identifying and Prioritizing the Barriers and Facilitators to the Self-Management of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Community-Centered Approach.

Authors:  Allison H Oakes; Vincent S Garmo; Lee R Bone; Daniel R Longo; Jodi B Segal; John F P Bridges
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2017-12       Impact factor: 3.883

5.  Segmenting patients and physicians using preferences from discrete choice experiments.

Authors:  Ken Deal
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2014       Impact factor: 3.883

6.  Patient preferences for surgical versus medical therapy for ulcerative colitis.

Authors:  Meenakshi Bewtra; Vikram Kilambi; Angelyn O Fairchild; Corey A Siegel; James D Lewis; F Reed Johnson
Journal:  Inflamm Bowel Dis       Date:  2014-01       Impact factor: 5.325

7.  Parental Considerations Regarding Cure and Late Effects for Children With Cancer.

Authors:  Katie A Greenzang; Hasan Al-Sayegh; Clement Ma; Mehdi Najafzadeh; Eve Wittenberg; Jennifer W Mack
Journal:  Pediatrics       Date:  2020-04-13       Impact factor: 7.124

8.  Valuations of genetic test information for treatable conditions: the case of colorectal cancer screening.

Authors:  Vikram Kilambi; F Reed Johnson; Juan Marcos González; Ateesha F Mohamed
Journal:  Value Health       Date:  2014-11-06       Impact factor: 5.725

9.  US valuation of health outcomes measured using the PROMIS-29.

Authors:  Benjamin M Craig; Bryce B Reeve; Paul M Brown; David Cella; Ron D Hays; Joseph Lipscomb; A Simon Pickard; Dennis A Revicki
Journal:  Value Health       Date:  2014-12       Impact factor: 5.725

10.  Patient Preferences for Bariatric Surgery: Findings From a Survey Using Discrete Choice Experiment Methodology.

Authors:  Michael D Rozier; Amir A Ghaferi; Angela Rose; Norma-Jean Simon; Nancy Birkmeyer; Lisa A Prosser
Journal:  JAMA Surg       Date:  2019-01-16       Impact factor: 14.766

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.