Literature DB >> 27325321

Statistical Methods for the Analysis of Discrete Choice Experiments: A Report of the ISPOR Conjoint Analysis Good Research Practices Task Force.

A Brett Hauber1, Juan Marcos González2, Catharina G M Groothuis-Oudshoorn3, Thomas Prior4, Deborah A Marshall5, Charles Cunningham6, Maarten J IJzerman3, John F P Bridges7.   

Abstract

Conjoint analysis is a stated-preference survey method that can be used to elicit responses that reveal preferences, priorities, and the relative importance of individual features associated with health care interventions or services. Conjoint analysis methods, particularly discrete choice experiments (DCEs), have been increasingly used to quantify preferences of patients, caregivers, physicians, and other stakeholders. Recent consensus-based guidance on good research practices, including two recent task force reports from the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, has aided in improving the quality of conjoint analyses and DCEs in outcomes research. Nevertheless, uncertainty regarding good research practices for the statistical analysis of data from DCEs persists. There are multiple methods for analyzing DCE data. Understanding the characteristics and appropriate use of different analysis methods is critical to conducting a well-designed DCE study. This report will assist researchers in evaluating and selecting among alternative approaches to conducting statistical analysis of DCE data. We first present a simplistic DCE example and a simple method for using the resulting data. We then present a pedagogical example of a DCE and one of the most common approaches to analyzing data from such a question format-conditional logit. We then describe some common alternative methods for analyzing these data and the strengths and weaknesses of each alternative. We present the ESTIMATE checklist, which includes a list of questions to consider when justifying the choice of analysis method, describing the analysis, and interpreting the results.
Copyright © 2016 International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  conjoint analysis; discrete choice experiment; stated-preference methods; statistical analysis

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27325321     DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2016.04.004

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


  248 in total

1.  How Do Older Adults Consider Age, Life Expectancy, Quality of Life, and Physician Recommendations When Making Cancer Screening Decisions? Results from a National Survey Using a Discrete Choice Experiment.

Authors:  Ellen M Janssen; Craig E Pollack; Cynthia Boyd; John F P Bridges; Qian-Li Xue; Antonio C Wolff; Nancy L Schoenborn
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2019-06-21       Impact factor: 2.583

2.  Estimating Preferences for Complex Health Technologies: Lessons Learned and Implications for Personalized Medicine.

Authors:  Deborah A Marshall; Juan Marcos Gonzalez; Karen V MacDonald; F Reed Johnson
Journal:  Value Health       Date:  2017-01       Impact factor: 5.725

3.  Examining Generalizability of Older Adults' Preferences for Discussing Cessation of Screening Colonoscopies in Older Adults with Low Health Literacy.

Authors:  Nancy L Schoenborn; Norah L Crossnohere; Ellen M Janssen; Craig E Pollack; Cynthia M Boyd; Antonio C Wolff; Qian-Li Xue; Jacqueline Massare; Marcela Blinka; John F P Bridges
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2019-08-26       Impact factor: 5.128

4.  Discrete Choice Experiments: A Guide to Model Specification, Estimation and Software.

Authors:  Emily Lancsar; Denzil G Fiebig; Arne Risa Hole
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2017-07       Impact factor: 4.981

5.  Art and Science of Instrument Development for Stated-Preference Methods.

Authors:  Ellen M Janssen; John F P Bridges
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2017-08       Impact factor: 3.883

6.  Symposium Title: Preference Evidence for Regulatory Decisions.

Authors:  Juan Marcos Gonzalez; F Reed Johnson; Bennett Levitan; Rebecca Noel; Holly Peay
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2018-10       Impact factor: 3.883

7.  Age at Diagnosis and Patient Preferences for Treatment Outcomes in AML: A Discrete Choice Experiment to Explore Meaningful Benefits.

Authors:  Daniel R Richardson; Norah L Crossnohere; Jaein Seo; Elihu Estey; Bernadette O'Donoghue; B Douglas Smith; John F P Bridges
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2020-03-04       Impact factor: 4.254

8.  Whole-body MRI compared with standard pathways for staging metastatic disease in lung and colorectal cancer: the Streamline diagnostic accuracy studies.

Authors:  Stuart A Taylor; Susan Mallett; Anne Miles; Stephen Morris; Laura Quinn; Caroline S Clarke; Sandy Beare; John Bridgewater; Vicky Goh; Sam Janes; Dow-Mu Koh; Alison Morton; Neal Navani; Alfred Oliver; Anwar Padhani; Shonit Punwani; Andrea Rockall; Steve Halligan
Journal:  Health Technol Assess       Date:  2019-12       Impact factor: 4.014

9.  Patient preferences: a Trojan horse for evidence-based medicine?

Authors:  Afschin Gandjour
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2018-01

10.  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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.