Marco Boeri1, Daniel Saure2, Alexander Schacht2, Elisabeth Riedl3, Brett Hauber4. 1. RTI Health Solutions, Health Preference Assessment, Forsyth House, Cromac Square, Belfast, BT2 8LA, UK. mboeri@rti.org. 2. Eli Lilly and Company, Bad Homburg, Germany. 3. Eli Lilly and Company, Vienna, Austria. 4. RTI Health Solutions, Health Preference Assessment, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Either a random-parameters logit (RPL) or latent class (LC) model can be used to model or explain preference heterogeneity in discrete-choice experiment (DCE) data. The former assumes continuous distribution of preferences across the sample, while the latter assumes a discrete distribution. This study compared RPL and LC models to explore preference heterogeneity when analyzing patient preferences for psoriasis treatments. METHODS: Using DCE data collected from respondents with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis, we calculated and compared preference weights derived from RPL and LC models. We then compared how RPL and LC explain preference heterogeneity by exploring differences across subgroups defined by observed characteristics (i.e., country, age, gender, marital status, and psoriasis severity). RESULTS: While RPL and LC models resulted in the same mean preference weights, different preference-heterogeneity patterns emerged from the two approaches. In both models, country of residence and self-reported disease severity could be linked to systematic differences in preferences. The RPL also identified gender and marital status, but not age, as sources of heterogeneity; the LC membership probability model indicated that age was a significant factor, but not gender or marital status. CONCLUSIONS: Using data from a psoriasis patient survey to compare two widely used methods for exploring heterogeneity identified differences in results between stated-preferences: subgroup analysis in the RPL model and inclusion of subgroup characteristics in the class membership probability function of the LC model. Researchers should model data using the most adaptable approach to address the initial study question.
BACKGROUND: Either a random-parameters logit (RPL) or latent class (LC) model can be used to model or explain preference heterogeneity in discrete-choice experiment (DCE) data. The former assumes continuous distribution of preferences across the sample, while the latter assumes a discrete distribution. This study compared RPL and LC models to explore preference heterogeneity when analyzing patient preferences for psoriasis treatments. METHODS: Using DCE data collected from respondents with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis, we calculated and compared preference weights derived from RPL and LC models. We then compared how RPL and LC explain preference heterogeneity by exploring differences across subgroups defined by observed characteristics (i.e., country, age, gender, marital status, and psoriasis severity). RESULTS: While RPL and LC models resulted in the same mean preference weights, different preference-heterogeneity patterns emerged from the two approaches. In both models, country of residence and self-reported disease severity could be linked to systematic differences in preferences. The RPL also identified gender and marital status, but not age, as sources of heterogeneity; the LC membership probability model indicated that age was a significant factor, but not gender or marital status. CONCLUSIONS: Using data from a psoriasispatient survey to compare two widely used methods for exploring heterogeneity identified differences in results between stated-preferences: subgroup analysis in the RPL model and inclusion of subgroup characteristics in the class membership probability function of the LC model. Researchers should model data using the most adaptable approach to address the initial study question.
Authors: Elizabeth T Montgomery; Erica N Browne; Millicent Atujuna; Marco Boeri; Carol Mansfield; Siyaxolisa Sindelo; Miriam Hartmann; Sheily Ndwayana; Linda-Gail Bekker; Alexandra M Minnis Journal: J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Date: 2021-07-01 Impact factor: 3.771
Authors: David A Walsh; Marco Boeri; Lucy Abraham; Jo Atkinson; Andrew G Bushmakin; Joseph C Cappelleri; Brett Hauber; Kathleen Klein; Leo Russo; Lars Viktrup; Dennis Turk Journal: Eur J Pain Date: 2022-01-08 Impact factor: 3.651
Authors: Nathaniel Hendrix; Brett Hauber; Christoph I Lee; Aasthaa Bansal; David L Veenstra Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2021-06-12 Impact factor: 4.497