Literature DB >> 30906968

A Guide to Measuring and Interpreting Attribute Importance.

Juan Marcos Gonzalez1.   

Abstract

Stated-preference (SP) methods, such as discrete-choice experiments (DCE) and best-worst scaling (BWS), have increasingly been used to measure preferences for attributes of medical interventions. Preference information is commonly characterized using attribute importance. However, attribute importance measures  can vary in value and interpretation depending on the method used to elicit preferences, the specific context of the questions, and the approach used to normalize attribute effects. This variation complicates the interpretation of preference results and the comparability of results across subgroups in a sample. This article highlights the potential consequences of ignoring variations in attribute importance measures, and makes the case for reporting more clearly how these measures are obtained and calculated. Transparency in the calculations can clarify what conclusions are supported by the results, and help make more accurate and meaningful comparisons across subsamples.

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 30906968     DOI: 10.1007/s40271-019-00360-3

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


  17 in total

1.  Myeloma Patient Value Mapping: A Discrete Choice Experiment on Myeloma Treatment Preferences in the UK.

Authors:  Simon Fifer; Jayne Galinsky; Sarah Richard
Journal:  Patient Prefer Adherence       Date:  2020-07-28       Impact factor: 2.711

2.  Do preferences differ based on respondent experience of a health issue and its treatment? A case study using a public health intervention.

Authors:  David J Mott; Laura Ternent; Luke Vale
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2022-06-18

3.  Parturients' Stated Preferences for Labor Analgesia: A Discrete Choice Experiment.

Authors:  Semra Ozdemir; Teresa Chen; Chin Wen Tan; Wei Han Melvin Wong; Hon Sen Tan; Eric Andrew Finkelstein; Ban Leong Sng
Journal:  Patient Prefer Adherence       Date:  2022-04-08       Impact factor: 2.711

4.  Patient and Clinician Preferences for Genetic and Genomic Testing in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Discrete Choice Experiment.

Authors:  Simon Fifer; Robyn Ordman; Lisa Briggs; Andrea Cowley
Journal:  J Pers Med       Date:  2022-05-26

5.  Valuing EQ-5D-Y-3L Health States Using a Discrete Choice Experiment: Do Adult and Adolescent Preferences Differ?

Authors:  David J Mott; Koonal K Shah; Juan Manuel Ramos-Goñi; Nancy J Devlin; Oliver Rivero-Arias
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2021-03-18       Impact factor: 2.583

6.  Alignment of preferences in the treatment of multiple myeloma - a discrete choice experiment of patient, carer, physician, and nurse preferences.

Authors:  Simon J Fifer; Kerrie-Anne Ho; Sean Lybrand; Laurie J Axford; Steve Roach
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2020-06-11       Impact factor: 4.430

7.  Heterogeneity in Preferences for Anti-coagulant Use in Atrial Fibrillation: A Latent Class Analysis.

Authors:  Janine van Til; Catharina Oudshoorn-Groothuis; Marieke Weernink; Clemens von Birgelen
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2020-08       Impact factor: 3.883

8.  Eliciting Preferences for HIV Prevention Technologies: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  S Wilson Beckham; Norah L Crossnohere; Margaret Gross; John F P Bridges
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2020-12-15       Impact factor: 3.883

9.  Quantifying Benefit-Risk Preferences for Heart Failure Devices: A Stated-Preference Study.

Authors:  Shelby D Reed; Jui-Chen Yang; Timothy Rickert; F Reed Johnson; Juan Marcos Gonzalez; Robert J Mentz; Mitchell W Krucoff; Sreekanth Vemulapalli; Philip B Adamson; David J Gebben; Liliana Rincon-Gonzalez; Anindita Saha; Daniel Schaber; Kenneth M Stein; Michelle E Tarver; Dean Bruhn-Ding
Journal:  Circ Heart Fail       Date:  2021-12-23       Impact factor: 8.790

10.  Comparison of Adult and Adolescent Preferences Toward EQ-5D-Y-3L Health States.

Authors:  Valentina Prevolnik Rupel; Juan M Ramos-Goñi; Marko Ogorevc; Simone Kreimeier; Kristina Ludwig; Wolfgang Greiner
Journal:  Value Health       Date:  2021-06-25       Impact factor: 5.725

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.