Literature DB >> 35716317

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

David J Mott1,2, Laura Ternent3, Luke Vale3.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Preference information is increasingly being elicited to support decision-making. Although discrete choice experiments (DCEs) are commonly used, little is known about how respondents' relative experience of a health issue, and its treatment, might impact the results of preference studies. The aim of this study was to explore how preferences differ between groups of individuals with varying levels of experience of a health issue and its treatment, using a weight loss maintenance (WLM) programme as a case study.
METHODS: An online DCE survey was provided to four groups, each differing in their level of experience with weight loss and WLM programmes. One group was recruited from a randomised controlled trial of a WLM programme (ISRCTN14657176) and the other three from an online panel. Choice data were analysed using mixed logit models. Relative attribute importance scores and willingness-to-pay (WTP) estimates were estimated to enable comparisons between groups.
RESULTS: Preferences differed between the groups across different attributes. The largest differences related to the outcome (weight re-gain) and cost attributes, resulting in WTP estimates that were statistically significantly different. The most experienced group was willing to pay £0.35 (95% CI: £0.28, £0.42) to avoid a percentage point increase in weight re-gain, compared with £0.12 (95% CI: £0.08, £0.16) for the least experienced group.
CONCLUSION: This study provides evidence in a public health setting to suggest that preferences differ based on respondent experience of the health issue and its treatment. Health preference researchers should therefore carefully consider the appropriate composition of their study samples.
© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Discrete choice experiment; Experience; Public health intervention; Weight loss maintenance; Willingness-to-pay

Year:  2022        PMID: 35716317     DOI: 10.1007/s10198-022-01482-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Health Econ        ISSN: 1618-7598


  32 in total

1.  Giving Patients a Meaningful Voice in United States Regulatory Decision Making: The Role for Health Preference Research.

Authors:  F Reed Johnson; Kathleen Beusterien; Semra Özdemir; Leslie Wilson
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2017-08       Impact factor: 3.883

2.  Factors and situations influencing the value of patient preference studies along the medical product lifecycle: a literature review.

Authors:  Eline van Overbeeke; Chiara Whichello; Rosanne Janssens; Jorien Veldwijk; Irina Cleemput; Steven Simoens; Juhaeri Juhaeri; Bennett Levitan; Jürgen Kübler; Esther de Bekker-Grob; Isabelle Huys
Journal:  Drug Discov Today       Date:  2018-09-26       Impact factor: 7.851

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

Authors:  A Brett Hauber; Juan Marcos González; Catharina G M Groothuis-Oudshoorn; Thomas Prior; Deborah A Marshall; Charles Cunningham; Maarten J IJzerman; John F P Bridges
Journal:  Value Health       Date:  2016-05-12       Impact factor: 5.725

4.  Incorporating Quantitative Patient Preference Data into Healthcare Decision Making Processes: Is HTA Falling Behind?

Authors:  David John Mott
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2018-06       Impact factor: 3.883

5.  The Ball is in Your Court: Agenda for Research to Advance the Science of Patient Preferences in the Regulatory Review of Medical Devices in the United States.

Authors:  Bennett Levitan; A Brett Hauber; Marina G Damiano; Ross Jaffe; Stephanie Christopher
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2017-10       Impact factor: 3.883

Review 6.  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

7.  Use of Patient Preference Studies in HTA Decision Making: A NICE Perspective.

Authors:  Jacoline C Bouvy; Luke Cowie; Rosemary Lovett; Deborah Morrison; Heidi Livingstone; Nick Crabb
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2020-04       Impact factor: 3.883

8.  Using Discrete Choice Experiments to Inform the Benefit-Risk Assessment of Medicines: Are We Ready Yet?

Authors:  Caroline M Vass; Katherine Payne
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2017-09       Impact factor: 4.981

9.  Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: Past, Present and Future.

Authors:  Vikas Soekhai; Esther W de Bekker-Grob; Alan R Ellis; Caroline M Vass
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2019-02       Impact factor: 4.981

10.  Opportunities and challenges for the inclusion of patient preferences in the medical product life cycle: a systematic review.

Authors:  Rosanne Janssens; Isabelle Huys; Eline van Overbeeke; Chiara Whichello; Sarah Harding; Jürgen Kübler; Juhaeri Juhaeri; Antonio Ciaglia; Steven Simoens; Hilde Stevens; Meredith Smith; Bennett Levitan; Irina Cleemput; Esther de Bekker-Grob; Jorien Veldwijk
Journal:  BMC Med Inform Decis Mak       Date:  2019-10-04       Impact factor: 2.796

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.