An empirical comparison of methods for analyzing correlated data from a discrete choice survey to elicit patient preference for colorectal cancer screening

BMC Medical Research Methodology

Volumn 12, Issue , 2012, Pages

  Cheng, Ji ^a,b   Pullenayegum, Eleanor ^a,b   Marshall, Deborah A ^c   Marshall, John K ^a   Thabane, Lehana ^a,b  

^a MCMASTER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^b MCMASTER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY   (Canada)

Author keywords

Discrete choice experiment; Intra class correlation; Patient preference; Statistical model

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CANADA; CLUSTER ANALYSIS; COLORECTAL TUMOR; COMPARATIVE STUDY; DECISION MAKING; DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM; EMPIRICAL RESEARCH; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE SURVEY; HUMAN; MALE; MASS SCREENING; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; PATIENT PREFERENCE; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; QUESTIONNAIRE; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; STATISTICAL MODEL; STATISTICS;

CANADA; CHOICE BEHAVIOR; CLUSTER ANALYSIS; COLORECTAL NEOPLASMS; DECISION SUPPORT TECHNIQUES; EMPIRICAL RESEARCH; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE SURVEYS; HUMANS; LOGISTIC MODELS; MALE; MASS SCREENING; MIDDLE AGED; PATIENT PREFERENCE; QUESTIONNAIRES; RESEARCH DESIGN; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

EID: 84857130384     PISSN: None     EISSN: 14712288     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2288-12-15     Document Type: Review

References (59)

1. Longo MF, Cohen DR, Hood K, Edwards A, Robling M, Elwyn G, Russell IT: Involving patients in primary care consultations: assessing preferences using discrete choice experiments. Br J Gen Pract 2006, 56(522):35-42.
2. Ryan M, Major K, Skatun D: Using discrete choice experiments to go beyond clinical outcomes when evaluating clinical practice. J Eval Clin Pract 2005, 11(4):328-338.
3. Lancaster KJ: A new approach to consumer theory. J Polit Econ 1966, 74(2):132-157.
4. Montgomery DC: Design and analysis of experiments. 5 edition. New York: Wiley; 2000.
5. Louviere J, Hensher D: On the design and analysis of simulated choice or allocation experiments in travel choice modelling. Transp Res Rec 1982, 890:11-17.
6. Louviere J, Woodworth G: Design and analysis of simulated consumer choice or allocation experiments: an approach based on aggregate data. J Mark Res 1983, 20:350-367.
7. de Bekker-Grob EW, Ryan M, Gerard K: Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature. Health Econ 2010, doi:10.1002/hec.1697.
8. Ryan M, Gerard K: Using discrete choice experiments to value health care programs: current practice and future research reflections. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 2003, 2(1):55-64.
9. Marshall DA, Bridges JFP, Hauber B, Cameron RA, Donnalley L, Fyie KA, Johnson FR: 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. The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research 2010, 3:249-256.
10. Louviere JJ, Lancsar E: Choice experiments in health: the good, the bad, the ugly and toward a brighter future. Health Econ Policy Law 2009, 4(Pt 4):527-546.
11. Bryan S, Dolan P: Discrete choice experiments in health economics. For better or for worse? Eur J Health Econ 2004, 5(3):199-202.
12. Louviere JJ, Pihlens D, Carson R: Design of discrete choice experiments: a discussion of issues that matter in future applied research. Journal of Choice Modelling 2010, 4:1-8.
13. Ryan M, Gerard K, Amaya-Amaya M: Using discrete choice experiments to value health and health care Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer; 2008.
14. Bridges JFP, Hauber B, Marshall DA, Lloyd A, Prosser LA, Regier DA, Johnson FR, Mauskopf J: Conjoint analysis applications in health-a checklist: a report of the ISPOR good research practices for conjoint Analysis task force. Value Health 2011, 14:403-413.
15. Lancsar E, Louviere J: Conducting discrete choice experiments to inform healthcare decision making: a user's guide. Pharmaco Economics 2008, 26(8):661-677.
16. Mehndiratta SR, Hansen M: Analysis of discrete choice data with repeated observations: comparison of three Techniques in intercity travel Case. Transp Res Rec 1997, 1607:69.
17. Marshall DA, Johnson FR, Phillips KA, Marshall JK, Thabane L, Kulin NA: Measuring patient preferences for colorectal cancer screening using a choice-format survey. Value Health 2007, 10(5):415-430.
18. Colorectal Cancer Association of Canada., [http://www.colorectal-cancer. ca/en/just-the-facts/colorectal/] and [http://www.colorectal-cancer.ca/en/screening/fobt-and-fit/].
19. Anonymous From the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: Colorectal cancer test use among persons aged > or = 50 years-United States, 2001. JAMA 2003, 289(19):2492-2493.
20. Walsh JM, Terdiman JP: Colorectal cancer screening: scientific review. JAMA 2003, 289(10):1288-1296.
21. Slomski A: Expert panel offers advice to improve screening rates for colorectal cancer. JAMA 2010, 303(14):1356-1357.
22. Labianca R, Merelli B: Screening and diagnosis for colorectal cancer: present and future. Tumori 2010, 96(6):889-901.
23. Kuhfeld WF: Discrete choice (SAS Technical Papers: Marketing research, MR2010F). [http://support.sas.com/techsup/technote/mr2010f.pdf], (Date of last access: January 7, 2012).
24. Street DJ, Burgess L: Optimal and near-optimal pairs for the estimation of effects in 2-level choice experiments. Journal of Statistics Planning and Inference 2004, 118:185-199.
25. Louviere J, Flynn F, Carson R: Discrete choice experiments are not conjoint analysis. Journal of Choice Modelling 2010, 2(2):57-72.
26. Neuhaus JM: Statistical methods for longitudinal and clustered designs with binary responses. Stat Methods Med Res 1992, 1(3):249-273.
27. Pendergast JF, Gange SJ, Newton MA, Lindstrom MJ, Palta M, Fisher MR: A survey of methods for analyzing clustered binary response data. Int Stat Rev 1998, 64:89-118.
28. Huber JS, Ervin LH: Using heteroscedastic consistent standard errors in the linear regression model. Am Stat 2000, 54:795-806.
29. Rogers W: Regression standard errors in clustered samples. Stata Technical Bulletin 1994, 3:19-23.
30. Larsen K, Petersen JH, Budtz-Jørgensen E, Endahl L: Interpreting parameters in the logistic regression model with random effects. Biometrics 2000, 56:909-914.
31. Hedeker D, Gibbons RD, Flay BR: Random-effects regression models for clustered data with an example from smoking prevention research. J Consult Clin Psychol 1994, 62(4):757-765.
32. Stata online help. [http://www.stata.com/help.cgi?xtmelogit].
33. Rabe-Hesketh S, Skrondal A: Multilevel and longitudinal modeling using Stata. 2 edition. USA: A Stata Press Publication; 2008.
34. Shults J, Sun W, Tu X, Kim H, Amsterdam J, Hilbe JM, Ten-Have T: A comparison of several approaches for choosing between working correlation structures in generalized estimating equation analysis of longitudinal binary data. Stat Med 2009, 28(18):2338-2355.
35. Hanley JA, Negassa A, Edwardes MD, Forrester JE: Statistical analysis of correlated data using generalized estimating equations: an orientation. Am J Epidemiol 2003, 157(4):364-375.
36. Ballinger GA: Using generalized estimating equations for longitudinal data analysis. Organ Res Methods 2004, 7:127-150.
37. Long JS, Freese J: Regression models for categorical dependent variables using STATA. 2 edition. Texas, USA: Stata Press; 2006.
38. Chib S, Greenberg E: Analysis of multivariate probit models. Biometrika 1998, 85:347-361.
39. Pizzo E, Pezzoli A, Stockbrugger R, Bracci E, Vagnoni E, Gullini S: Screenee perception and health-related quality of life in colorectal cancer screening: a review. Value Health 2011, 14(1):152-159.
40. Cheng S, Long J: Testing for IIA in the multinomial logit model. Sociological Methods Research 2007, 35(4):583-600.
41. Crouchley R, Ganjali M: A comparison of GEE and random effects models for distinguishing heterogeneity, nonstationarity and state dependence in a collection of short binary event series. Stat Model 2002, 2:39-62.
42. Hedeker D: A mixed-effects multinomial logistic regression model. Stat Med 2003, 22(9):1433-1446.
43. Daganzo C: Multinomial probit: the theory and its application to demand forecasting New York: Academic; 1979.
44. Kaplan D, Venezky RL: Literacy and voting behavior: a bivariate probit model with sample selection. Soc Sci Res 1994, 23:350-367.
45. Watt DJ, Kayis B, Willey K: The relative importance of tender evaluation and contractor selection criteria. International Journal of Project Management 2010, 28:51-60.
46. Heitman SJ, Hilsden RJ, Au F, Dowden S, Manns BJ: Colorectal cancer screening for average-risk North Americans: an economic evaluation. PLoS Med 2010, 7(11):e1000370.
47. Nelson RL, Schwartz A: A survey of individual preference for colorectal cancer screening technique. BMC Cancer 2004, 4:76.
48. Campbell MJ, Donner A, Klar N: Developments in cluster randomized trials and Statistics in Medicine. Stat Med 2007, 26(1):2-19.
49. Ma J, Thabane L, Kaczorowski J, Chambers L, Dolovich L, Karwalajtys T, Levitt C: Comparison of Bayesian and classical methods in the analysis of cluster randomized controlled trials with a binary outcome: the Community Hypertension Assessment Trial (CHAT). BMC Med Res Methodol 2009, 9:37.
50. Schukken YH, Grohn YT, McDermott B, McDermott JJ: Analysis of correlated discrete observations: background, examples and solutions. Prev Vet Med 2003, 59(4):223-240.
51. Neuhaus JM, Kalbfleisch JD, Hauck WW: A comparison of cluster-specific and population-averaged approaches for analyzing correlated binary data. Int Stat Rev 1991, 59:25-35.
52. Hubbard AE, Ahern J, Fleischer NL, Van der Laan M, Lippman SA, Jewell N, Bruckner T, Satariano WA: To GEE or not to GEE: comparing population average and mixed models for estimating the associations between neighborhood risk factors and health. Epidemiology 2010, 21(4):467-474.
53. Munizaga MA, Heydecker BG, de Dios Ortúzar J: Representation of heteroskedasticity in discrete choice models. Transp Res 2000, 34:219-240.
54. Peters TJ, Richards SH, Bankhead CR, Ades AE, Sterne JA: Comparison of methods for analysing cluster randomized trials: an example involving a factorial design. Int J Epidemiol 2003, 32(5):840-846.
55. Heil SF: A review of multilevel and longitudinal modeling using stata. J Educ Behav Stat 2009, 34:559-560.
56. Burda M, Harding M, Hausman J: A Bayesian mixed logit-probit model for multinomial choice. J Econ 2008, 147:232-246.
57. Ferguson S, Olewnik A, Cormier P: Proceedings of the exploring marketing to engineering information mapping in mass customization: a presentation of ideas, challenges and resulting questions: August 28-31; Washington, DC, USA USA: ASME; 2011.
58. Kato H: Proceedings of the non-linearity of utility function and value of travel time savings: empirical analysis of inter-regional non-business travel mode choice of Japan: September 18-20; Strasbourg European Transport Conference: France; 2006.
59. Kjaer T, Bech M, Gyrd-Hansen D, Hart-Hansen K: Ordering effect and price sensitivity in discrete choice experiments: need we worry? Health Econ 2006, 15(11):1217-1228.