Nominal group technique to select attributes for discrete choice experiments: An example for drug treatment choice in osteoporosis

Patient Preference and Adherence

Volumn 7, Issue , 2013, Pages 133-139

  Hiligsmann, Mickael ^a   van Durme, Caroline ^a   Geusens, Piet ^a   Dellaert, Benedict G C ^b   Dirksen, Carmen D ^a   van der Weijden, Trudy ^a   Reginster, Jean Yves ^c   Boonen, Annelies ^a  

^a MAASTRICHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^b ROTTERDAM UNIVERSITY OF APPLIED SCIENCES   (Netherlands)

^c UNIVERSITY OF LIÈGE   (Belgium)

Author keywords

Discrete choice experiment; Medication attributes; Nominal group technique; Osteoporosis; Patient preference

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ANALYTIC METHOD; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CLINICAL EFFECTIVENESS; CONTROLLED STUDY; DISCRETE CHOICE EXPERIMENT; DRUG CHOICE; DRUG EFFICACY; FACE VALIDITY; FEASIBILITY STUDY; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE COST; HUMAN; MALE; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; NOMINAL GROUP TECHNIQUE; OSTEOPOROSIS; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PATIENT ASSESSMENT; PATIENT PREFERENCE; PATIENT SELECTION; PROCESS DEVELOPMENT; PROCESS OPTIMIZATION; REVIEW;

EID: 84874812347     PISSN: None     EISSN: 1177889X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2147/PPA.S38408     Document Type: Review

References (27)

1. Bridges JF, Hauber AB, Marshall D, etal. 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.
2. Lancsar E, Louviere J. Conducting discrete choice experiments to inform healthcare decision making: a user's guide. Pharmacoeconomics. 2008;26:661-677.
3. Ryan M, Bate A, Eastmond CJ, Ludbrook A. Use of discrete choice experiments to elicit preferences. Qual Health Care. 2001;10 Suppl 1:i55-i60.
4. Ryan M, Gerard K, Amaya-Amaya M. Using Discrete Choice Experiments to Value Health and Health Care. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer; 2008.
5. Coast J, Al-Janabi H, Sutton EJ, etal. Using qualitative methods for attribute development for discrete choice experiments: issues and recommendations. Health Econ. 2012;21:730-741.
6. Louviere J, Flynn TN, Carson R. Discrete choice experiments are not conjoint analysis. Journal of Choice Modelling. 2010;3:57-72.
7. Rohrbaugh J. Improving the quality of group judgment: social judgment analysis and the nominal group technique. Organ Behav Hum Perform. 1981;28:272-288.
8. [No authors listed]. Nominal group technique is reliable for deciding research priorities. BMJ. 2000;320(7240):E.
9. Vella K, Goldfrad C, Rowan K, Bion J, Black N. Use of consensus development to establish national research priorities in critical care. BMJ. 2000;320:976-980.
10. Weiss TW, Gold DT, Silverman SL, McHorney CA. An evaluation of patient preferences for osteoporosis medication attributes: results from the PREFER-US study. Curr Med Res Opin. 2006;22:949-960.
11. Duarte JW, Bolge SC, Sen SS. An evaluation of patients' preferences for osteoporosis medications and their attributes: the PREFER-International study. Clin Ther. 2007;29:488-503.
12. Darba J, Restovic G, Kaskens L, etal. Patient preferences for osteoporosis in Spain: a discrete choice experiment. Osteoporos Int. 2011;22:1947-1954.
13. de Bekker-Grob EW, Essink-Bot ML, Meerding WJ, Pols HA, Koes BW, Steyerberg EW. Patients' preferences for osteoporosis drug treatment: a discrete choice experiment. Osteoporos Int. 2008;19:1029-1037.
14. Fraenkel L, Gulanski B, Wittink D. Patient treatment preferences for osteoporosis. Arthritis Rheum. 2006;55:729-735.
15. Lee S, Glendenning P, Inderjeeth CA. Efficacy, side effects and route of administration are more important than frequency of dosing of anti-osteoporosis treatments in determining patient adherence: a critical review of published articles from 1970 to 2009. Osteoporos Int. 2011;22:741-753.
16. Rizzoli R, Reginster JY, Boonen S, etal. Adverse reactions and drug-drug interactions in the management of women with postmenopausal osteoporosis. Calcif Tissue Int. 2011;89:91-104.
17. Drennan V, Walters K, Lenihan P, Cohen S, Myerson S, Iliffe S. Priorities in identifying unmet need in older people attending general practice: a nominal group technique study. Fam Pract. 2007;24:454-460.
18. de Bekker-Grob EW, Ryan M, Gerard K. Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature. Health Econ. 2012;21:145-172.
19. Marshall D, Bridges JF, Hauber B, etal. 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. 2010;3:249-256.
20. Rabenda V, Hiligsmann M, Reginster JY. Poor adherence to oral bisphosphonate treatment and its consequences: a review of the evidence. Expert Opin Pharmacother. 2009;10:2303-2315.
21. Hiligsmann M, Rabenda V, Bruyere O, Reginster JY. The clinical and economic burden of non-adherence with oral bisphosphonates in osteoporotic patients. Health Policy. 2010;96:170-177.
22. Hiligsmann M, McGowan B, Bennett K, Barry M, Reginster JY. The clinical and economic burden of poor adherence and persistence with osteoporosis medications in Ireland. Value Health. 2012;15:604-612.
23. Osterberg L, Blaschke T. Adherence to medication. N Engl J Med. 2005;353:487-497.
24. Montori VM, Shah ND, Pencille LJ, etal. Use of a decision aid to improve treatment decisions in osteoporosis: the osteoporosis choice randomized trial. Am J Med. 2011;124:549-556.
25. Elwyn G, Edwards A, Britten N. What information do patients need about medicines? "Doing prescribing": how doctors can be more effective. BMJ. 2003;327:864-867.
26. Ryan M, Farrar S. Using conjoint analysis to elicit preferences for health care. BMJ. 2000;320:1530-1533.
27. Rose JM, Bliemer MCJ, Hensher DA, Collins AT. Designing efficient stated choice experiments in the presence of reference alternatives. Transport Res B-Meth. 2008;42:395-406.