Conjoint analysis applications in health-how are studies being designed and reported?: An update on current practice in the published literature between 2005 and 2008

Patient

Volumn 3, Issue 4, 2010, Pages 249-256

  Marshall, Deborah ^a,b   Bridges, John F P ^c   Hauber, Brett ^d   Cameron, Ruthanne ^b   Donnalley, Lauren ^c   Fyie, Ken ^a   Johnson, F Reed ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY   (Canada)

^b CENTRE FOR EVALUATION OF MEDICINES   (Canada)

^c JOHNS HOPKINS BLOOMBERG SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

^d RTI HEALTH SOLUTIONS   (United States)

Author keywords

Conjoint analysis

Indexed keywords

CONJOINT ANALYSIS; HEALTH SURVEY; MEDICAL INFORMATION SYSTEM; METHODOLOGY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PATIENT SELECTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; SAMPLE SIZE; STRUCTURED QUESTIONNAIRE;

EID: 77956557108     PISSN: 11781653     EISSN: 11781661     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2165/11539650-000000000-00000     Document Type: Review

References (13)

1. Bridges JF, Jones C. Patient-based health technology assessment: a vision of the future. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2007; 23 (1): 30-5
2. 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
3. Louviere J, Hensher D, Swait J. Stated choice methods: analysis and application. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000
4. Ryan M, Gerard K. Using discrete choice experiments to value health care programmes: current practice and future research reflections. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 2003; 2: 55-64
5. Bridges JFP, Kinter ET, Kidane L, et al. Things are looking up since we started listening to patients: recent trends in the application of conjoint analysis in health 1982-2007. Patient 2008; 1 (4): 273-82
6. International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR). ISPOR preference-based methods special interest group: conjoint analysis working group. Activities and accomplishments 2007-2009 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.ispor.org/sigs/PreferenceBased MethodsConjointAnalysisWG.asp [Accessed 2010 Aug 17]
7. Bridges JFP, Hauber B, Marshall DA, et al. A checklist for conjoint analysis applications in health: report of the ISPOR Conjoint Analysis Good Research Practices Taskforce. Value Health. In press
8. Ryan M, Farrar S. Using conjoint analysis to elicit preferences for health care. BMJ 2000; 320 (7248): 1530-3
9. Lanscar E, Louviere J. Conducting discrete choice experiments to inform healthcare decision making: a users guide. Pharmacoeconomics 2008; 26 (8): 661-77
10. Coast J, Flynn TN, Salisbury C, et al. Maximising responses to discrete choice experiments: a randomised trial. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 2006; 5 (4): 249-60
11. Orme B. Getting started with conjoint analysis: strategies for product design and pricing research. Madison (WI): Research Publishers LLC, 2006
12. Canadian Institutes for Health Research. Presidents Advisory Board, Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research. Strategy for patient-oriented research: a discussion paper for a 10-year plan to change health care using the levers of research. Ottawa (ON): Canadian Institutes for Health Research, 2010 Feb [online].Available fromURL: http://www.cihr-irsc. gc.ca/e/41232.html [Accessed 2010 Aug 17]
13. The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Act of 2009, S. 1213, 111th Cong.