Literature DB >> 22272995

Things are Looking up Since We Started Listening to Patients: Trends in the Application of Conjoint Analysis in Health 1982-2007.

John F P Bridges1, Elizabeth T Kinter, Lillian Kidane, Rebekah R Heinzen, Colleen McCormick.   

Abstract

Clinical and healthcare decision makers have repeatedly endorsed patient-centered care as a goal of the health system. However, traditional methods of evaluation reinforce societal views, and research focusing on views of patients is often referred to as 'soft science.' Conjoint analysis presents a scientifically rigorous research tool that can be used to understand patient preferences and inform decision making. This paper documents applications of conjoint analysis in medicine and systematically reviews this literature in order to identify publication trends and the range of topics to which conjoint analysis has been applied. In addition, we document important methodological aspects such as sample size, experimental design, and method of analysis.Publications were identified through a MEDLINE search using multiple search terms for identification. We classified each article into one of three categories: clinical applications (n = 122); methodological contributions (n = 56); and health system applications (n = 47). Articles that did not use or adequately discuss conjoint analysis methods (n = 164) were discarded. We identified a near exponential increase in the application of conjoint analyses over the last 10 years of the study period (1997-2007). Over this period, the proportion of applications on clinical topics increased from 40% of articles published in MEDLINE from 1998 to 2002, to 64% of articles published from 2003 to 2007 (p = 0.002).The average sample size among articles focusing on health system applications (n = 556) was significantly higher than clinical applications (n = 277) [p = 0.001], although this 2-fold difference was primarily due to a number of outliers reporting sample sizes in the thousands. The vast majority of papers claimed to use orthogonal factorial designs, although over a quarter of papers did not report their design properties. In terms of types of analysis, logistic regression was favored among clinical applications (28%), while probit was most commonly used among health systems applications (38%). However, 25% of clinical applications and 33% of health systems articles failed to report what regression methods were used. We used the International Classification of Diseases - version 9 (ICD-9) coding system to categorize clinical applications, with approximately 26% of publications focusing on neoplasm. Program planning and evaluation applications accounted for 22% of the health system articles.While interest in conjoint analysis in health is likely to continue, better guidelines for conducting and reporting conjoint analyses are needed.

Entities:  

Year:  2008        PMID: 22272995     DOI: 10.2165/01312067-200801040-00009

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Patient        ISSN: 1178-1653            Impact factor:   3.883


  17 in total

1.  Modeling choice behavior for new pharmaceutical products.

Authors:  M F Bingham; F R Johnson; D Miller
Journal:  Value Health       Date:  2001 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 5.725

2.  Measuring preferences for health care interventions using conjoint analysis: an application to HIV testing.

Authors:  Kathryn A Phillips; Tara Maddala; F Reed Johnson
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2002-12       Impact factor: 3.402

Review 3.  Using discrete choice experiments to value health care programmes: current practice and future research reflections.

Authors:  Mandy Ryan; Karen Gerard
Journal:  Appl Health Econ Health Policy       Date:  2003       Impact factor: 2.561

4.  What can economics add to health technology assessment? Please not just another cost-effectiveness analysis!

Authors:  John Fp Bridges
Journal:  Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res       Date:  2006-02       Impact factor: 2.217

5.  Report of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute working group on outcomes research in cardiovascular disease.

Authors:  Harlan M Krumholz; Eric D Peterson; John Z Ayanian; Marshall H Chin; Robert F DeBusk; Lee Goldman; Catarina I Kiefe; Neil R Powe; John S Rumsfeld; John A Spertus; William S Weintraub
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2005-06-14       Impact factor: 29.690

6.  Discrete choice experiments to measure consumer preferences for health and healthcare.

Authors:  Rosalie Viney; Emily Lancsar; Jordan Louviere
Journal:  Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res       Date:  2002-08       Impact factor: 2.217

7.  Can pharmacoeconomics and outcomes research contribute to the empowerment of women affected by breast cancer?

Authors:  Jessica T Lee; John Fp Bridges; Lillie Shockney
Journal:  Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res       Date:  2008-02       Impact factor: 2.217

8.  Eliciting public preferences for healthcare: a systematic review of techniques.

Authors:  M Ryan; D A Scott; C Reeves; A Bate; E R van Teijlingen; E M Russell; M Napper; C M Robb
Journal:  Health Technol Assess       Date:  2001       Impact factor: 4.014

9.  Accounting for tastes: a German perspective on the inclusion of patient preferences in healthcare.

Authors:  Florian Vogt; David L B Schwappach; John F P Bridges
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2006       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 10.  Patient satisfaction in primary health care: a literature review and analysis.

Authors:  G C Pascoe
Journal:  Eval Program Plann       Date:  1983
View more
  61 in total

1.  Patient preferences for first-line oral treatment for mild-to-moderate ulcerative colitis: a discrete-choice experiment.

Authors:  Paul Hodgkins; Paul Swinburn; Dory Solomon; Linnette Yen; Sarah Dewilde; Andrew Lloyd
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2012       Impact factor: 3.883

2.  Why not real economics?

Authors:  F Reed Johnson
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2012-02-01       Impact factor: 4.981

3.  Conjoint analysis: a 'new' way to evaluate patients' preferences.

Authors:  Sarah T Hawley
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2008-12-01       Impact factor: 3.883

4.  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

5.  Inaugural conjoint analysis in health conference.

Authors:  Jennifer M Griffith; Thomas J Hoerger; Michael P Pignone
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2008-12-01       Impact factor: 3.883

6.  Physician preferences for bone metastasis drug therapy in Canada.

Authors:  J Arellano; J M González; Y Qian; M Habib; A F Mohamed; F Gatta; A B Hauber; J Posner; N Califaretti; E Chow
Journal:  Curr Oncol       Date:  2015-10       Impact factor: 3.677

7.  Measuring Preferences for Colorectal Cancer Screening: What are the Implications for Moving Forward?

Authors:  Deborah Marshall; S Elizabeth McGregor; Gillian Currie
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2010-06-01       Impact factor: 3.883

8.  Patient preferences and linear scoring rules for patient-reported outcomes.

Authors:  Ateesha F Mohamed; A Brett Hauber; F Reed Johnson; Cheryl D Coon
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2010-12-01       Impact factor: 3.883

Review 9.  Decision making about cancer screening: an assessment of the state of the science and a suggested research agenda from the ASPO Behavioral Oncology and Cancer Communication Special Interest Group.

Authors:  Marc T Kiviniemi; Jennifer L Hay; Aimee S James; Isaac M Lipkus; Helen I Meissner; Michael Stefanek; Jamie L Studts; John F P Bridges; David R Close; Deborah O Erwin; Resa M Jones; Karen Kaiser; Kathryn M Kash; Kimberly M Kelly; Simon J Craddock Lee; Jason Q Purnell; Laura A Siminoff; Susan T Vadaparampil; Catharine Wang
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2009-11       Impact factor: 4.254

10.  Towards personalizing treatment for depression : developing treatment values markers.

Authors:  Marsha N Wittink; Knashawn H Morales; Mark Cary; Joseph J Gallo; Stephen J Bartels
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2013       Impact factor: 3.883

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.