Adaptive choice-based conjoint analysis: A new patient-centered approach to the assessment of health service preferences

Patient

Volumn 3, Issue 4, 2010, Pages 257-273

  Cunningham, Charles E ^a,b   Deal, Ken ^c   Chen, Yvonne ^b  

^a MCMASTER CHILDREN S HOSPITAL   (Canada)

^b MCMASTER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^c MCMASTER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

Conjoint analysis; Patient preference

Indexed keywords

ADAPTIVE CHOICE BASED CONJOINT ANALYSIS; AUTOMOBILE INDUSTRY; CALIBRATION; COMPUTER; COMPUTER PROGRAM; CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK; DECISION MAKING; FAST FOOD; HEALTH CARE COST; HEALTH PROGRAM; HEALTH SURVEY; INFORMATION PROCESSING; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY OF LIFE; REVIEW; SCREENING TEST; STRUCTURED QUESTIONNAIRE; TELEPHONE;

EID: 77956539429     PISSN: 11781653     EISSN: 11781661     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2165/11537870-000000000-00000     Document Type: Review

References (93)

1. Wait S, Nolte E. Public involvement policies in health: exploring their conceptual basis. Health Econ Policy Law 2006 April; 1 (2): 149-62
2. Lomas J. Reluctant rationers: public input to health care priorities. J Health Serv Res Policy 1997 Apr; 2 (2): 103-11
3. Swift JK, Callahan JL. The impact of client treatment preferences on outcome: a meta-analysis. J Clin Psychol 2009 Feb 18; 65 (4): 368-81
4. Adamson SJ, Bland JM, Hay EM, et al. Patients preferences within randomised trials: systematic review and patient level meta-analysis. BMJ 2008 Oct; 337: a1864
5. Ryan M. Discrete choice experiments in health care. BMJ 2004 Feb 14; 328 (7436): 360-1
6. Bridges JFP, Kinter ET, Kidane L, et al. Things are looking up since we started listening to patients: trends in the application of conjoint analysis in health 1982-2007. Patient 2008 Oct 1; 1 (4): 273-83
7. Lancsar E, Louviere J. Conducting discrete choice experiments to inform healthcare decision making: a users guide. Pharmacoeconomics 2008; 26 (8): 661-77
8. Ryan M, Scott DA, Reeves C, et al. Eliciting public preferences for healthcare: a systematic review of techniques. Health Technol Assess 2001; 5 (5): 1-186
9. Cunningham CE, Deal K, Rimas H, et al. Using conjoint analysis to model the preferences of different patient segments for attributes of patient-centred care. Patient 2008 Oct 1; 1 (4): 317-30
10. Fraenkel L, Bogardus Jr ST, Concato J, et al. Treatment options in knee osteoarthritis: the patients perspective. Arch Intern Med 2004 Jun 28; 164 (12): 1299-304 (Pubitemid 38828880)
11. Fraenkel L, Chodkowski D, Lim J, et al. Patients preferences for treatment of hepatitis C. Med Decis Making 2010; 30 (1): 45-57
12. Fraenkel L. Conjoint analysis at the individual patient level: issues to consider as we move from a research to a clinical tool. Patient 2008 Oct 1; 1 (4): 251-3
13. Luce RD, Tukey JW. Simultaneous conjoint measurement: a new type of fundamental measurement. J Math Psychol 1964; 1 (1): 1-27
14. Orme BK. Getting started with conjoint analysis: strategies for product design and pricing research. Madison (WI): Research Publishers, 2009
15. Gustafsson A, Herrmann A, Huber F. Conjoint analysis as an instrument of market research practice. In: Gustafsson A, Herrmann A, Huber F, editors. Conjoint measurement. Berlin: Springer, 2007: 3-34
16. Hensher DA, Rose JM, Greene WH. Applied choice analysis: a primer. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005
17. Ryan M, Gerard K, Amaya-Amaya M. Using discrete choice experiments to value health and health care. New York: Springer, 2007
18. Hanley N, Ryan M, Wright R. Estimating the monetary value of health care: lessons from environmental economics. Health Econ 2003 Jan; 12 (1): 3-16
19. Lancsar E, Louviere J, Flynn T. Several methods to investigate relative attribute impact in stated preference experiments. Soc Sci Med 2007 Apr; 64 (8): 1738-53
20. Brown DS, Johnson FR, Poulos C, et al. Mothers preferences and willingness to pay for vaccinating daughters against human papillomavirus. Vaccine 2010 Feb 17; 28 (7): 1702-8
21. Telser H, Zweifel P. Measuring willingness-to-pay for risk reduction: an application of conjoint analysis. Health Econ 2002 March; 11 (2): 129-39
22. DeSarbo WS, Ramaswamy V, Cohen SH. Market segmentation with choice-based conjoint analysis. Mark Lett 1995; 6 (2): 137-47
23. Ramaswamy V, Cohen SH. Latent class models for conjoint analysis. In: Gustafsson A, Herrmann A, Huber F, editors. Conjoint measurement methods and applications. 4th ed. New York: Springer, 2007: 295-320
24. Huber J, Orme BK, Miller R. Dealing with product similarity in conjoint simulations. In: GustafssonA, HerrmannA, Huber F, editors. Conjoint measurement: methods and applications. 4th ed. New York: Springer, 2007: 347-62
25. Ryan M, Skatun D, Major K. Using discrete choice experiments to go beyond clinical outcomes when evaluating clinical practice. In: Ryan M, Gerard K, Amaya-Amaya M, editors. Using discrete choice experiments to value health and health care. New York: Springer, 2007: 101-16
26. Bridges JF. Future challenges for the economic evaluation of healthcare: patient preferences, risk attitudes and beyond. Pharmacoeconomics 2005; 23 (4): 317-21
27. Ryan M. Using conjoint analysis to take account of patient preferences and go beyond health outcomes: an application to in vitro fertilisation. Soc Sci Med 1999 Feb; 48 (4): 535-46
28. Streiner DL, Norman GR. Health measurement scales: a practical guide to their development and use. 4th ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008
29. Tourangeau R, Yan T. Sensitive questions in surveys. Psychol Bull 2007 Sept; 133 (5): 859-83
30. Caruso EM, Rahnev DA, Banaji MR. Using conjoint analysis to detect discrimination: revealing covert preferences from overt choices. Soc Cogn 2009; 27 (1): 128-37
31. Phillips KA, Johnson FR, Maddala T. Measuring what people value: a comparison of attitude and preference surveys. Health Serv Res 2002 Dec; 37 (6): 1659-79
32. Kuhfeld WF, Tobias RD, Garratt M. Efficient experimental design with marketing research applications. JMarket Res 1994; 31 (4): 545-57
33. Patterson M, Chrzan K. Partial profile discrete choice: whats the optimal number of attributes? In: Sawtooth Software Inc., editors. 2003 Sawtooth Software Conference Proceedings; 2003 April 15-17; San Antonio (TX). Sequim (WA): Sawtooth Software Inc., 2003: 173-85
34. Louviere JJ, Hensher DA, Swait JD. Conjoint preference elicitation methods in the broader context of randomutility theory preference elicitation methods. In: Gustafsson A, Herrmann A, Huber F, editors. Conjoint measurement: methods and applications. 4th ed. New York: Springer, 2007: 167-97
35. Bridges JF. Stated preference methods in health care evaluation: an emerging methodological paradigm in health economics. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 2003; 2 (4): 213-24
36. ShahAK,Oppenheimer DM.Heuristics made easy: an effortreduction framework. Psychol Bull 2008; 134 (2): 207-22
37. Chinburapa V, Larson LN, Brucks M, et al. Physician prescribing decisions: the effects of situational involvement and task complexity on information acquisition and decision making. Soc Sci Med 1993 Jun; 36 (11): 1473-82
38. Gilbride TJ, Allenby GM. A choice model with conjunctive, disjunctive, and compensatory screening rules. Mark Sci 2004; 23 (3): 391-406
39. Kahneman D, Frederick S. Representativeness revisited: attribute substitution in intuitive judgment. In: Gilovich T, Griffin D, Kahneman D, editors. Heuristics of intuitive judgment: extensions and applications. 1st ed. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2002: 49-81
40. Mukherjee K. A dual system model of preferences under risk. Psychol Rev 2010 Jan; 117 (1): 243-55
41. Bettman JR, Luce MF. Constructive consumer choice processes. J Consum Res 1998 Dec; 25 (3): 187-219
42. Gibbons FX, Houlihan AE, Gerrard M. Reason and reaction: the utility of a dual-focus, dual-processing perspective on promotion and prevention of adolescent health risk behaviour. Br J Health Psychol 2009 May; 14 (Pt 2): 231-48
43. Peters E, Diefenbach MA, Hess TM, et al. Age differences in dual information-processing modes: implications for cancer decision making. Cancer 2008 Dec 15; 113 (12 Suppl.): 3556-67
44. Slovic P, Peters E, Finucane ML, et al. Affect, risk, and decision making. Health Psychol 2005; 24 (4): S35-40
45. Croskerry P. Clinical cognition and diagnostic error: applications of a dual process model of reasoning. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract 2009 Sep; 14 Suppl. 1: 27-35
46. Croskerry P. A universal model of diagnostic reasoning. Acad Med 2009 Aug; 84 (8): 1022-8
47. Norman G. Dual processing and diagnostic errors. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract 2009 Sep; 14 Suppl. 1: 37-49
48. Kuo WJ, Sjostrom T, Chen YP, et al. Intuition and deliberation: two systems for strategizing in the brain. Science 2009 Apr 24; 324 (5926): 519-22
49. Hauser J, Ding M, Gaskin S. Non-compensatory (and compensatory) models of consideration-set decisions. In: Sawtooth Software Inc., editors. 2009 Sawtooth Software Conference Proceedings; 2009 Mar 25-27; Delray Beach (FL). Sequim (WA): Sawtooth Software Inc., 2009: 207-32
50. Hauser J, ElyD, Yee M, et al. Must have aspects vs. tradeoff aspects in models of customer decisions. In: Sawtooth Software Inc., editors. 2006 Sawtooth Software Conference Proceedings; 2006 Mar 29-31; Delray Beach (FL). Sequim (WA): Sawtooth Software Inc., 2006: 169-81
51. Cunningham CE, Deal K, Rimas H, et al. Modeling the information preferences of parents of children with mental health problems: a discrete choice conjoint experiment. J Abnorm Child Psychol 2008 Oct; 7 (36): 1128-38
52. Cunningham CE, Vaillancourt T, Rimas H, et al. Modeling the bullying prevention program preferences of educators: a discrete choice conjoint experiment. J Abnorm Child Psychol 2009 May 20; 37 (7): 929-43
53. Cunningham CE, Deal K, Rimas H, et al. Providing information to parents of children with mental health problems: a discrete choice conjoint analysis of professional preferences. J Abnorm Child Psychol 2009 Nov; 37 (8): 1089-102
54. Cunningham CE, Deal K, Neville A, et al. Modeling the problem-based learning preferences of McMaster University undergraduate medical students using a discrete choice conjoint experiment. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract 2006 Aug; 11 (3): 245-66
55. Johnson RM. History of ACA [Sawtooth Software research paper series]. Sequim (WA): Sawtooth Software, 2001 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.sawtoothsoft ware.com/download/techpap/histaca.pdf [Accessed 2010 Aug 8]
56. Fraenkel L, Gulanski B, Wittink D. Patient treatment preferences for osteoporosis. Arthritis Rheum 2006 Oct 15; 55 (5): 729-35
57. Fraenkel L, Gulanski B, Wittink D. Patient willingness to take teriparatide. Patient Educ Couns 2007 Feb; 65 (2): 237-44
58. Bell RA, Paterniti DA, Azari R, et al. Encouraging patients with depressive symptoms to seek care: a mixed methods approach to message development. Patient Educ Couns 2010 Feb; 78 (2): 198-205
59. Dwight-Johnson M, Lagomasino IT, Aisenberg E, et al. Using conjoint analysis to assess depression treatment preferences among low-income Latinos. Psychiatr Serv 2004 Aug; 55 (8): 934-6
60. Dwight-Johnson M, Sherbourne CD, Liao D, et al. Treatment preferences among depressed primary care patients. J Gen Intern Med 2000 Aug; 15 (8): 527-34
61. Pieterse AH, Berkers F, Baas-Thijssen MC, et al. Adaptive conjoint analysis as individual preference assessment tool: feasibility through the internet and reliability of preferences. Patient Educ Couns 2010 Feb; 78 (2): 224-33
62. Stiggelbout AM, de Vogel-Voogt E, Noordijk EM, et al. Individual quality of life: adaptive conjoint analysis as an alternative for direct weighting? Qual Life Res 2008 May; 17 (4): 641-9
63. Beusterien KM, Dziekan K, Schrader S, et al. Patient preferences among third agent HIV medications: a US and German perspective. AIDS Care 2007 Sep; 19 (8): 982-8
64. Gan TJ, Lubarsky DA, Flood EM, et al. Patient preferences for acute pain treatment. Br J Anaesth 2004 May; 92 (5): 681-8
65. Halme M, Linden K, Kaaria K. Patients preferences for generic and branded over-the-counter medicines: an adaptive conjoint analysis approach. Patient 2009; 2 (4): 243-55
66. Sawtooth Software, Inc. ACBC technical paper [Sawtooth Software technical paper series]. Sequim (WA): Sawtooth Software, Inc., 2009 [online]. Available from URL: http:// www.sawtoothsoftware.com/download/techpap/acbctech. pdf [Accessed 2010 Aug 8]
67. Johnson RM, Orme BK. A new approach to adaptive CBC [Sawtooth Software research paper series]. Sequim (WA): Sawtooth Software, Inc., 2007 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.sawtoothsoftware.com/download/tech pap/acbc10.pdf [Accessed 2010 Aug 8]
68. Sawtooth Software. Adaptive choice (ACBC) [online]. Available from URL: http://www.sawtoothsoftware.com/ products/acbc/ [Accessed 2010 Aug 8]
69. Johnson R, Orme BK, Pinnell J. Simulating market preference with build your own data. In: Sawtooth Software Inc., editors. 2006 Sawtooth Software Conference Proceedings; 2006 Mar 29-31; Delray Beach (FL). Sequim (WA): Sawtooth Software, Inc., 2006: 239-53
70. Goodwin RJ, editor. Introduction of quantitative marketing research solutions in a traditional manufacturing firm: practical experiences. 2009 Sawtooth Software Conference Proceedings; 2009 Mar 25-27; Delray Beach (FL). Sequim (WA): Sawtooth Software Inc., 2009
71. Arora N, Allenby GM, Ginter JL. A hierarchical Bayes model of primary and secondary demand. Mark Sci 1998; 17 (1): 29-44
72. Allenby GM, Arora N, Gintner JL. Incorporating prior knowledge into the analysis of conjoint studies. J Market Res 1995; 32: 152-62
73. Lenk PJ, DeSarbo WS, Green PE, et al. Hierarchical Bayes conjoint analysis: recovery of partworth heterogeneity from reduced experimental designs. Mark Sci 1996March; 15 (2): 173-92
74. Allenby GM, Fennell G, Huber J, et al. Adjusting choice models to better predict market behavior. Mark Lett 2005 Dec; 16 (3-4): 197-208
75. Louviere JJ, Street D, Burgess L, et al. Modeling the choices of individual decision-makers by combining efficient choice experiment designs with extra preference information. J Choice Model 2008; 1: 128-63
76. Streiner DL, Norman GR. PDQ epidemiology. 3rd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Medical, 2009
77. Huber J, Zwerina K. The importance of utility balance in efficient choice designs. J Mark Res 1996 Aug; 33 (3): 307-17
78. Chapman CN, Alford JL, Johnson C, et al. CBC vs. ACBC: comparing results with real product selection. In: Sawtooth Software Inc., editors. 2009 Sawtooth Software Conference Proceedings; 2009 Mar 25-27; Delray Beach (FL). Sequim (WA): Sawtooth Software, Inc., 2009: 199-206
79. Johnson RM. Including holdout choice tasks in conjoint studies [Sawtooth Software research paper series]. Sequim (WA): Sawtooth Software, Inc., 1997 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.sawtoothsoftware.com/download/ techpap/inclhold.pdf [Accessed 2010 Aug 8]
80. Orme BK, Johnson RM. Testing adaptive CBC: shorter questionnaires and BYO vs. most likelies [Sawtooth Software research paper series]. Sequim (WA): Sawtooth Software, Inc., 2008 [online]. Available from URL: http:// www.sawtoothsoftware.com/download/techpap/acbc3home. pdf [Accessed 2010 Aug 8]
81. Kurz P, editor. A comparison between adaptive choice based conjoint, partial profile choice based conjoint and choice based conjoint. SKIM/Sawtooth Software Training Event; 2009 May 25-27; Prague. Sequim (WA): Sawtooth Software Inc., 2009
82. Orme BK. Fine-tuning CBC and adaptive CBC questionnaires [Sawtooth Software research paper series]. Sequim (WA): Sawtooth Software, Inc., 2009 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.sawtoothsoftware.com/ download/techpap/finetune.pdf [Accessed 2010 Aug 8]
83. Neggers R, Hoogerbrugge M, editors. ACBC test in mobile telephony. SKIM/Sawtooth Software Conference; 2009 May 25-27; Prague. Sequim (WA): Sawtooth Software, Inc., 2009
84. Binner S, Neggers R, Hoogerbrugge M, editors. ACBC: a case study. SKIM/Sawtooth Software Training Event; 2009 May 25-27; Prague. Sequim (WA): Sawtooth Software, Inc., 2009
85. Johnson FR, Ozdemir S, Manjunath R, et al. Factors that affect adherence to bipolar disorder treatments: a statedpreference approach. Med Care 2007 Jun; 45 (6): 545-52
86. Ryan M, Watson V, Entwistle V. Rationalising the irrational: a think aloud study of discrete choice experiment responses. Health Econ 2009 Mar; 18 (3): 321-36
87. Glockner A, Betsch T. Multiple-reason decision making based on automatic processing. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 2008 Sep; 34 (5): 1055-75
88. Hoogerbrugge M, van der Wagt K. How many choice tasks should we ask? In: Sawtooth Software Inc., editors. 2006 Sawtooth Software Conference Proceedings; 2006 Mar 29- 31; Delray Beach (FL). Sequim (WA): Sawtooth Software, Inc., 2006: 97-110
89. Johnson FR. Why not ask? Measuring patient preferences for healthcare decision making. Patient 2008 Oct 1; 1 (4): 245-8
90. Telser H, Becker K, Zweifel P. Validity and reliability of willingness-to-pay estimates: evidence from two overlapping discrete-choice experiments. Patient 2008 Oct 1; 1 (4): 283-98
91. Perlis RH, Perlis CS, Wu Y, et al. Industry sponsorship and financial conflict of interest in the reporting of clinical trials in psychiatry. Am J Psychiatry 2005 Oct 2005; 162 (10): 1957-60
92. Gluud LL. Bias in clinical intervention research. Am J Epidemiol 2006; 163 (6): 493-501
93. Bhandari M, Busse JW, Jackowski D, et al. Association between industry funding and statistically significant proindustry findings in medical and surgical randomized trials. Can Med Assoc J 2004; 170 (4): 477-80