Literature DB >> 22514094

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

John F P Bridges1, Angela T Lataille, Christine Buttorff, Sharon White, John K Niparko.   

Abstract

Low utilization of hearing aids has drawn increased attention to the study of consumer preferences using both simple ratings (e.g., Likert scale) and conjoint analyses, but these two approaches often produce inconsistent results. The study aims to directly compare Likert scales and conjoint analysis in identifying important attributes associated with hearing aids among those with hearing loss. Seven attributes of hearing aids were identified through qualitative research: performance in quiet settings, comfort, feedback, frequency of battery replacement, purchase price, water and sweat resistance, and performance in noisy settings. The preferences of 75 outpatients with hearing loss were measured with both a 5-point Likert scale and with 8 paired-comparison conjoint tasks (the latter being analyzed using OLS [ordinary least squares] and logistic regression). Results were compared by examining implied willingness-to-pay and Pearson's Rho. A total of 56 respondents (75%) provided complete responses. Two thirds of respondents were male, most had sensorineural hearing loss, and most were older than 50; 44% of respondents had never used a hearing aid. Both methods identified improved performance in noisy settings as the most valued attribute. Respondents were twice as likely to buy a hearing aid with better functionality in noisy environments (p < .001), and willingness to pay for this attribute ranged from US$2674 on the Likert to US$9000 in the conjoint analysis. The authors find a high level of concordance between the methods-a result that is in stark contrast with previous research. The authors conclude that their result stems from constraining the levels on the Likert scale.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22514094      PMCID: PMC4040849          DOI: 10.1177/1084713811434617

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Trends Amplif        ISSN: 1084-7138


  32 in total

1.  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

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

Authors:  John F P Bridges; A Brett Hauber; Deborah Marshall; Andrew Lloyd; Lisa A Prosser; Dean A Regier; F Reed Johnson; Josephine Mauskopf
Journal:  Value Health       Date:  2011-04-22       Impact factor: 5.725

3.  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

4.  Prevalence of hearing loss and differences by demographic characteristics among US adults: data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 1999-2004.

Authors:  Yuri Agrawal; Elizabeth A Platz; John K Niparko
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  2008-07-28

5.  Qualitative analysis of the handicap associated with occupational hearing loss.

Authors:  R Hétu; L Riverin; N Lalande; L Getty; C St-Cyr
Journal:  Br J Audiol       Date:  1988-11

6.  Hearing impairment and health-related quality of life: the Blue Mountains Hearing Study.

Authors:  Ee-Munn Chia; Jie Jin Wang; Elena Rochtchina; Robert R Cumming; Philip Newall; Paul Mitchell
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2007-04       Impact factor: 3.570

7.  Are chemotherapy patients' HRQoL importance weights consistent with linear scoring rules? A stated-choice approach.

Authors:  F Reed Johnson; A Brett Hauber; David Osoba; Ming-Ann Hsu; John Coombs; Catherine Copley-Merriman
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2006-03       Impact factor: 4.147

8.  A cost-utility analysis of adult group audiologic rehabilitation: are the benefits worth the cost?

Authors:  Harvey Abrams; Theresa Hnath Chisolm; Rachel McArdle
Journal:  J Rehabil Res Dev       Date:  2002 Sep-Oct

9.  Consistency of hearing aid use in infants with early-identified hearing loss.

Authors:  Mary Pat Moeller; Brenda Hoover; Barbara Peterson; Pat Stelmachowicz
Journal:  Am J Audiol       Date:  2008-11-24       Impact factor: 1.493

10.  A health policy for hearing impairment in older Australians: what should it include?

Authors:  Jennifer L Smith; Paul Mitchell; Jie Jin Wang; Stephen R Leeder
Journal:  Aust New Zealand Health Policy       Date:  2005-12-13
View more
  7 in total

Review 1.  Bilateral versus unilateral hearing aids for bilateral hearing impairment in adults.

Authors:  Anne Gm Schilder; Lee Yee Chong; Saoussen Ftouh; Martin J Burton
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2017-12-19

2.  Impact of advanced hearing aid technology on speech understanding for older listeners with mild to moderate, adult-onset, sensorineural hearing loss.

Authors:  Robyn M Cox; Jani A Johnson; Jingjing Xu
Journal:  Gerontology       Date:  2014-08-14       Impact factor: 5.140

3.  The effects of frequency lowering on speech perception in noise with adult hearing-aid users.

Authors:  Christi W Miller; Emily Bates; Marc Brennan
Journal:  Int J Audiol       Date:  2016-03-03       Impact factor: 2.117

Review 4.  Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature.

Authors:  Michael D Clark; Domino Determann; Stavros Petrou; Domenico Moro; Esther W de Bekker-Grob
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2014-09       Impact factor: 4.981

5.  Impact of Hearing Aid Technology on Outcomes in Daily Life I: The Patients' Perspective.

Authors:  Robyn M Cox; Jani A Johnson; Jingjing Xu
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2016 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 3.570

6.  Assessment of willingness to pay for expanded carrier screening among women and couples undergoing preconception carrier screening.

Authors:  Elizabeth V Clarke; Jennifer L Schneider; Frances Lynch; Tia L Kauffman; Michael C Leo; Ana G Rosales; John F Dickerson; Elizabeth Shuster; Benjamin S Wilfond; Katrina A B Goddard
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-07-18       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  Preferences for Hearing Aid Attributes Among People with Moderate or Greater Hearing Loss in Rural China: A Discrete Choice Experiment.

Authors:  Dawei Zhu; Xuefeng Shi; Stephen Nicholas; Xin Ye; Siyuan Chen; Ping He
Journal:  Patient Prefer Adherence       Date:  2020-03-25       Impact factor: 2.711

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.