Literature DB >> 23337210

Constructing experimental designs for discrete-choice experiments: report of the ISPOR Conjoint Analysis Experimental Design Good Research Practices Task Force.

F Reed Johnson1, Emily Lancsar, Deborah Marshall, Vikram Kilambi, Axel Mühlbacher, Dean A Regier, Brian W Bresnahan, Barbara Kanninen, John F P Bridges.   

Abstract

Stated-preference methods are a class of evaluation techniques for studying the preferences of patients and other stakeholders. While these methods span a variety of techniques, conjoint-analysis methods-and particularly discrete-choice experiments (DCEs)-have become the most frequently applied approach in health care in recent years. Experimental design is an important stage in the development of such methods, but establishing a consensus on standards is hampered by lack of understanding of available techniques and software. This report builds on the previous ISPOR Conjoint Analysis Task Force Report: Conjoint Analysis Applications in Health-A Checklist: A Report of the ISPOR Good Research Practices for Conjoint Analysis Task Force. This report aims to assist researchers specifically in evaluating alternative approaches to experimental design, a difficult and important element of successful DCEs. While this report does not endorse any specific approach, it does provide a guide for choosing an approach that is appropriate for a particular study. In particular, it provides an overview of the role of experimental designs for the successful implementation of the DCE approach in health care studies, and it provides researchers with an introduction to constructing experimental designs on the basis of study objectives and the statistical model researchers have selected for the study. The report outlines the theoretical requirements for designs that identify choice-model preference parameters and summarizes and compares a number of available approaches for constructing experimental designs. The task-force leadership group met via bimonthly teleconferences and in person at ISPOR meetings in the United States and Europe. An international group of experimental-design experts was consulted during this process to discuss existing approaches for experimental design and to review the task force's draft reports. In addition, ISPOR members contributed to developing a consensus report by submitting written comments during the review process and oral comments during two forum presentations at the ISPOR 16th and 17th Annual International Meetings held in Baltimore (2011) and Washington, DC (2012).
Copyright © 2013 International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23337210     DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2012.08.2223

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


  392 in total

1.  Using Best-Worst Scaling to Measure Caregiver Preferences for Managing their Child's ADHD: A Pilot Study.

Authors:  Susan dosReis; Xinyi Ng; Emily Frosch; Gloria Reeves; Charles Cunningham; John F P Bridges
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2015-10       Impact factor: 3.883

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.  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

Review 4.  A descriptive review on methods to prioritize outcomes in a health care context.

Authors:  Inger M Janssen; Ansgar Gerhardus; Milly A Schröer-Günther; Fülöp Scheibler
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2014-08-25       Impact factor: 3.377

5.  Focus Groups in Elderly Ophthalmologic Patients: Setting the Stage for Quantitative Preference Elicitation.

Authors:  Marion Danner; Vera Vennedey; Mickaël Hiligsmann; Sascha Fauser; Stephanie Stock
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2016-02       Impact factor: 3.883

6.  Prioritizing outcome preferences in patients with ocular hypertension and open-angle glaucoma using best-worst scaling.

Authors:  Jimmy T Le; Amanda K Bicket; Ellen M Janssen; Davinder Grover; Sunita Radhakrishnan; Steven Vold; Michelle E Tarver; Malvina Eydelman; John F P Bridges; Tianjing Li
Journal:  Ophthalmol Glaucoma       Date:  2019-09-03

7.  A Systematic Review of Discrete-Choice Experiments and Conjoint Analysis Studies in People with Multiple Sclerosis.

Authors:  Edward J D Webb; David Meads; Ieva Eskyte; Natalie King; Naila Dracup; Jeremy Chataway; Helen L Ford; Joachim Marti; Sue H Pavitt; Klaus Schmierer; Ana Manzano
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2018-08       Impact factor: 3.883

8.  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

9.  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

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.