Measuring preferences for analgesic treatment for cancer pain: How do African-Americans and Whites perform on choice-based conjoint (CBC) analysis experiments?

BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making

Volumn 13, Issue 1, 2013, Pages

  Meghani, Salimah H ^a   Chittams, Jesse ^a   Hanlon, Alexandra L ^a   Curry, Joseph ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA SCHOOL OF NURSING   (United States)

^b Sawtooth Technologies Inc   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANALGESIC AGENT;

AFRICAN AMERICAN; ARTICLE; CAUCASIAN; COMPARATIVE STUDY; ETHNOLOGY; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASM; PAIN; PATIENT PREFERENCE; PREDICTIVE VALUE; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; REPRODUCIBILITY; STATISTICAL MODEL; STATISTICS; UNITED STATES;

AFRICAN AMERICANS; ANALGESICS; EUROPEAN CONTINENTAL ANCESTRY GROUP; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MODELS, STATISTICAL; NEOPLASMS; PAIN; PATIENT PREFERENCE; PHILADELPHIA; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS;

EID: 84885514541     PISSN: None     EISSN: 14726947     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/1472-6947-13-118     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. The patient-centered outcomes research institute (PCORI) national priorities for research and initial research agenda. Selby JV, Beal AC, Frank L, JAMA 2012 307 15 1583 1584 10.1001/jama.2012.500 22511682
2. A law of comparative judgment. Thurstone LL, Psychol Rev 1927 34 278 286
3. Simultaneous conjoint measurement. Luce D, Tukey J, J Math Psychol 1964 1 1 27 10.1016/0022-2496(64)90015-X
4. Conjoint measurement for quantifying judgmental data. Green P, Rao V, J Mark Res 1971 8 355 363 10.2307/3149575
5. Conjoint analysis applications in health-a checklist: a report of the ISPOR good research practices for conjoint analysis task force. Bridges JF, et al. Value Health 2011 14 4 403 413 10.1016/j.jval.2010.11.013 21669364
6. A new approach to consumer theory. Lancaster JK, J Polit Econ 1966 74 132 157 10.1086/259131
7. Orme BK, Getting started with conjoint analysis: Strategies for product design and pricing research Madison: Research Publishers LLC 2005
8. Modeling consumer choices of health plans: a comparison of two techniques. Rosko MD, McKenna W, Soc Sci Med 1983 17 7 421 429 10.1016/0277-9536(83)90347-7 6867787
9. Racial disparities in treatment preferences for rheumatoid arthritis. Constantinescu F, et al. Med Care 2009 47 3 350 355 10.1097/MLR.0b013e31818af829 19165120
10. Preferences for colorectal cancer screening among racially/ethnically diverse primary care patients. Hawley ST, et al. Med Care 2008 46 9 Suppl 1 10 S16 18725820
11. Preference for analgesic treatment for cancer pain among African Americans. Meghani SH, Keane A, J Pain Symptom Manage 2007 34 2 136 147 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2006.10.019 17531436 (Pubitemid 47088904)
12. Racial and ethnic disparities in pain: causes and consequences of unequal care. Anderson KO, Green CR, Payne R, J Pain 2009 10 12 1187 1204 10.1016/j.jpain.2009.10.002 19944378
13. The unequal burden of pain: confronting racial and ethnic disparities in pain. Green CR, et al. Pain Med 2003 4 3 277 294 10.1046/j.1526-4637.2003.03034. x 12974827 (Pubitemid 37336725)
14. Advancing a national agenda to eliminate disparities in pain care: directions for health policy, education, practice, and research. Meghani SH, et al. Pain Med 2012 13 1 5 28 10.1111/j.1526-4637.2011.01289.x 22142450
15. Race, ethnicity, and pain among the U.S. adult population. Shavers VL, Bakos A, Sheppard VB, J Health Care Poor Underserved 2010 21 1 177 220 10.1353/hpu.0.0255 20173263
16. Pain and ethnicity in the United States: a systematic review. Cintron A, Morrison RS, J Palliat Med 2006 9 6 1454 473 10.1089/jpm.2006.9.1454 17187552 (Pubitemid 46047954)
17. A pilot study to identify correlates of intentional versus unintentional nonadherence to analgesic treatment for cancer pain. Meghani SH, Bruner DW, Pain Manag Nurs 2013 14 2 22 30 10.1016/j.pmn.2011.03.003 23688368
18. Constructing experimental designs for discrete-choice experiments: report of the ISPOR conjoint analysis experimental design good research practices task force. Johnson FR, et al. Value Health 2013 16 1 3 13 10.1016/j.jval.2012.08. 2223 23337210
19. Eliciting public preferences for healthcare: a systematic review of techniques. Ryan M, et al. Health Technol Assess 2001 5 5 1 186
20. Choice-based conjoint analysis (CBC) to elicit preferences for cancer pain treatment between and among African Americans and whites: a pilot study. Meghani SH, J Pain 2010 11 4 20
21. Sawtooth Software Inc, The MaxDiff System: Technical Paper Sequim: Sawtooth Software, Inc.: Sawtooth Software Technical Paper Series 2008
22. Using conjoint analysis to elicit preferences for health care. Ryan M, Farrar S, BMJ 2000 320 7248 1530 1533 10.1136/bmj.320.7248.1530 10834905 (Pubitemid 30330316)
23. Sawtooth Software, Choice-based Conjoint (CBC) Technical Paper Sequim: Sawtooth Software, Inc. 2008
24. Johnson FR, Yang J, Mohamed AF, In Defense of Imperfect Experimental Designs; Statistical Efficiency and Measurement Error in Choice-Format Conjoint Analysis Sawtooth Software Conference Proceedings. 2012 http://www. sawtoothsoftware.com/download/techpap/2012Proceedings.pdf
25. Johnson RM, Orme BK, How Many Questions Should You Ask in Choice-Based Conjoint Studies Beaver Creek, Colorado: Paper presented at the American Marketing Association Advanced Research Techniques Forum 1996 http://www.skimgroup.com/images/stories/technicalpapers/CBC-related%20papers/ howmanyq.pdf
26. Sawtooth Software Inc, The CBC/HB System for Hierarchical Bayes Estimation Version 5.0 Technical Paper Sequim: Sawtooth Software, Inc. 2009
27. Orme BK, Alpert MI, Christensen E, Assessing the validity of conjoint analysis Sequim: Sawtooth Software, Inc. 1997
28. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Landis JR, Koch GG, Biometrics 1977 33 1 159 174 10.2307/2529310 843571 (Pubitemid 8054849)
29. SAS Institute Inc, SAS/STAT® 9.2 User's Guide. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc. Copyright © 2008 Cary, NC, USA: SAS Institute Inc 2008
30. Pain assessment: global use of the brief pain inventory. Cleeland CS, Ryan KM, Ann Acad Med Singap 1994 23 2 129 138 8080219
31. Patient-related barriers to pain management: the barriers questionnaire II (BQ-II). Gunnarsdottir S, et al. Pain 2002 99 3 385 396 10.1016/S0304- 3959(02)00243-9 12406513 (Pubitemid 35284269)
32. Identifying and analysing dominant preferences in discrete choice experiments: an application in health care. Scott A, J Econ Psychol 2002 23 383 398 10.1016/S0167-4870(02)00082-X
33. Preference measurement using conjoint methods: an empirical investigation of reliability. Bryan S, Gold L, Health Econ 2000 9 385 395 10.1002/1099-1050(200007)9:5<385::AID-HEC533>3.0.CO;2-W 10903539 (Pubitemid 30612142)