Choice Experiments to Quantify Preferences for Health and Healthcare: State of the Practice

Applied Health Economics and Health Policy

Volumn 14, Issue 3, 2016, Pages 253-266

  Mühlbacher, Axel ^a,b   Johnson, F Reed ^c  

^a Hochschule Neubrandenburg   (Germany)

^b DUKE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^c DUKE CLINICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK; CONSENSUS; DOCTOR PATIENT RELATION; EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN; EXPERIMENTAL MODEL; HEALTH CARE SYSTEM; HEALTH ECONOMICS; HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH; HEALTH STATUS; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; INTERNAL VALIDITY; PHYSICIAN; QUANTITATIVE STUDY; RISK ASSESSMENT; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; TREATMENT OUTCOME; BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DECISION MAKING; ECONOMICS; FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT; HEALTH PERSONNEL ATTITUDE; METHODOLOGY; PATIENT PREFERENCE; PROCEDURES; STANDARDS;

ATTITUDE OF HEALTH PERSONNEL; CHOICE BEHAVIOR; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DECISION MAKING; FINANCING, PERSONAL; HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH; HUMANS; PATIENT PREFERENCE; RESEARCH DESIGN; TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT, BIOMEDICAL;

EID: 84961201360     PISSN: 11755652     EISSN: 11791896     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s40258-016-0232-7     Document Type: Article

References (76)

1. Lancsar E, Louviere J. Conducting discrete choice experiments to inform healthcare decision making. Pharmacoeconomics. 2008;26(8):661–77.
2. Johnson FR, Hauber AB. Quantifying patient benefit-risk tradeoff preferences: a brief introduction. Research Triangle Park: RTI Health Solutions; 2008.
3. Mühlbacher AC, et al. Patient preferences for features of health care delivery systems: a discrete choice experiment. Health Serv Res. 2015. doi:10.1111/1475-6773.12345.
4. Mühlbacher AC, et al. Preferences for treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD): a discrete choice experiment. BMC Health Serv Res. 2009;9(1):149.
5. Mühlbacher AC, et al. Preferences for antiviral therapy of hepatitis C: a discrete-choice experiment. Eur J Health Econ. 2016. doi:10.1007/s10198-016-0763-8.
6. Drummond MF, et al. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. New York: Oxford University Press; 2005.
7. Bridges J, et al. Patient preference methods—a patient centered evaluation paradigm. ISPOR Connect. 2007;13(6):4–7.
8. Johnson FR, Backhouse M. Eliciting stated preferences for health-technology adoption criteria using paired comparisons and recommendation judgments. Value Health. 2006;9(5):303–11.
9. Johnson FR, Banzhaf MR, Desvousges WH. Willingness to pay for improved respiratory and cardiovascular health: a multiple-format, stated-preference approach. Health Econ. 2000;9(4):295–317.
10. Johnson FR, et al. Are chemotherapy patients’ HRQoL importance weights consistent with linear scoring rules? A stated-choice approach. Qual Life Res. 2006;15(2):285–98.
11. Roux L, et al. Valuing the benefits of weight loss programs: an application of the discrete choice experiment. Obes Res. 2004;12(8):1342–51.
12. Mühlbacher AC, Nübling M. Analysis of physicians’ perspectives versus patients’ preferences: direct assessment and discrete choice experiments in the therapy of multiple myeloma. Eur J Health Econ. 2011;12(3):193–203.
13. Lancsar E, et al. Deriving distributional weights for QALYs through discrete choice experiments. J Health Econ. 2011;30(2):466–78.
14. Flynn TN. Using conjoint analysis and choice experiments to estimate QALY values. Pharmacoeconomics. 2010;28(9):711–22.
15. European Medicines Agency (EMA) Benefit-risk methodology project. Work package 4 report: benefit-risk tools and processes; 2012.
16. Ho MP, et al. Incorporating patient-preference evidence into regulatory decision making. Surg Endosc. 2015;29(10):2984–93.
17. US Food and Drug Administration Center for Devices and Radiological Health and Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research. Patient preference information—submission, review in PMAs, HDE applications, and de novo requests, and inclusion in device labeling: draft guidance for industry, food and drug administration staff, and other stakeholders; 2015.
18. Mühlbacher AC. Patient-centric HTA: different strokes for different folks. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2015;15(4):591–7.
19. Merino-Castelló A. Demand for pharmaceutical drugs: a choice modelling experiment. UPF Economics and Business Working Paper. 2003(704).
20. Bridges JFP, et al. Conjoint analysis applications in health—a checklist: a report of the ISPOR Good Research Practices for Conjoint Analysis Task Force. Value Health. 2011;14(4):403–13.
21. Mühlbacher A, Bethge S, Tockhorn A. Präferenzmessung im gesundheitswesen: grundlagen von discrete-choice-experimenten. Gesundh Ökon Qual Manag. 2013;18(4):159–72.
22. McFadden D. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. Zarembka. 1974;1974:105–42.
23. Lancaster KJ. A new approach to consumer theory. J Political Econ. 1966;74(2):132–57.
24. Lancaster K. Consumer demand: a new approach. New York: Columbia University Press; 1971.
25. Thurstone LL. A law of comparative judgment. Psychol Rev. 1927;34(4):273.
26. Marschak J. Binary-choice constraints and random utility indicators. In: Proceedings of a symposium on mathematical methods in the social sciences. 1960.
27. Luce RD. Individual choice behavior a theoretical analysis, vol. 115. New York: John Wiley and sons; 1959.
28. Gerard K, Shanahan M, Louviere J. Using stated preference discrete choice modelling to inform health care decision-making: a pilot study of breast screening participation. Appl Econ. 2003;35(9):1073–85.
29. Lancsar E, Savage E. Deriving welfare measures from discrete choice experiments: inconsistency between current methods and random utility and welfare theory. Health Econ. 2004;13(9):901–7.
30. Kjær T. A review of the discrete choice experiment-with emphasis on its application in health care. Health Economics Papers; 2005.
31. Louviere JJ, Hensher DA, Swait JD. Stated choice methods: analysis and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2000.
32. Telser H. Nutzenmessung im gesundheitswesen: die methode der discrete-choice-experimente, ed. S.v. Forschungsergebnisse, vol. 78. Hamburg: Kovač; 2002.
33. Telser H, Becker K, Zweifel P. Validity and reliability of willingness-to-pay estimates. Patient Patient Cent Outcomes Res. 2008;1(4):283–98.
34. McFadden D. Economic choices. Am Econ Rev. 2001;91(3):351–78.
35. Ben-Akiva ME, Lerman SR. Discrete choice analysis: theory and application to travel demand, vol. 9. Cambridge: MIT press; 1985.
36. Train KE. Discrete choice methods with simulation. 2. ed. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2009.
37. Hensher DA, Rose JM, Greene WH. Applied choice analysis: a primer. Cambridge University Press; 2005.
38. Cunningham CE, et al. Modeling the bullying prevention program preferences of educators: a discrete choice conjoint experiment. J Abnorm Child Psychol. 2009;37(7):929–43.
39. Hauber AB, et al. Benefits, risk, and uncertainty: preferences of antiretroviral-naïve African Americans for HIV treatments. AIDS Patient Care STDs. 2009;23(1):29–34.
40. Louviere JJ, Pihlens D, Carson R. Design of discrete choice experiments: a discussion of issues that matter in future applied research. J Choice Model. 2011;4(1):1–8.
41. Ryan M, Gerard K, Amaya-Amaya M. Using discrete choice experiments to value health and health care, vol. 11. Dordrecht: Springer & Business Media; 2008.
42. Coast J, Horrocks S. Developing attributes and levels for discrete choice experiments using qualitative methods. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2007;12(1):25–30.
43. Simon HA. Theories of decision-making in economics and behavioral science. Am Econ Rev. 1959;49:253–83.
44. Helm R, Steiner M. Präferenzmessung: methodengestützte entwicklung zielgruppenspezifischer produktinnovationen. Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer Verlag; 2008.
45. Street DJ, Burgess L. Some open combinatorial problems in the design of stated choice experiments. Discrete Math. 2008;308(13):2781–8.
46. Bunch D, Louviere J, Andersson D. A comparison of experimental design strategies for choice-based conjoint analysis with generic-attribute multinomial logit models. University of California, Davis, Graduate School of Management Working Paper; 1996. p. 11–96.
47. Software Sawtooth. The CBC system for choice-based conjoint analysis, in technical paper series, CBC—technical paper. Washington: Sawtooth Software Inc.; 2008.
48. 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(1):55–64.
49. Chrzan K, Orme B. An overview and comparison of design strategies for choice-based conjoint analysis. Sawtooth software research paper series; 2000.
50. Chrzan K, Elrod T. Choice-based approach for large numbers of attributes. Mark News. 1995;29(1):20.
51. Zhang J, et al. Too many attributes: a test of the validity of combining discrete-choice and best–worst scaling data. J Choice Model. 2015;15:1–13.
52. Johnson FR, et al. Constructing experimental designs for discrete-choice experiments: report of the ISPOR conjoint analysis experimental design good research practices task force. Value Health. 2013;16(1):3–13.
53. Wittink DR, Krishnamurthi L, Reibstein DJ. The effect of differences in the number of attribute levels on conjoint results. Mark Lett. 1990;1(2):113–23.
54. Verlegh PW, Schifferstein HN, Wittink DR. Range and number-of-levels effects in derived and stated measures of attribute importance. Mark Lett. 2002;13(1):41–52.
55. Poulos C, et al. Pediatricians’ preferences for infant Meningococcal vaccination. Value Health. 2015;18(1):67–77.
56. Mohamed A, et al. Do patients and physicians have similar preferences for chronic hepatitis B treatment outcomes in Turkey? Flora J Infect Dis Clin Microbiol. 2012;17(1):29–38.
57. Özdemir S, Johnson FR, Hauber AB. Hypothetical bias, cheap talk, and stated willingness to pay for health care. J Health Econ. 2009;28(4):894–901.
58. Bech M, Kjaer T, Lauridsen J. Does the number of choice sets matter? Results from a web survey applying a discrete choice experiment. Health Econ. 2011;20(3):273–86.
59. Brown DS, et al. Mothers’ preferences and willingness to pay for vaccinating daughters against human papillomavirus. Vaccine. 2010;28(7):1702–8.
60. Mühlbacher AC, Juhnke C. Patient preferences versus physicians’ judgement: does it make a difference in healthcare decision making? Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2013;11(3):163–80.
61. Muhlbacher AC, Bethge S. Reduce mortality risk above all else: a discrete-choice experiment in acute coronary syndrome patients. Pharmacoeconomics. 2015;33(1):71–81.
62. ChoiceMetrics, Ngene 1.1. 1 User manual and reference guide. Sydney: ChoiceMetrics; 2012.
63. Rose JM, Bliemer MCJ. Sample size requirements for stated choice experiments. Transportation. 2013;40(5):1021–41.
64. Johnson RM, Orme BK. How many questions should you ask in choice-based conjoint studies. In: ART Forum Proceedings; 1996.
65. Huber J, Zwerina K. The importance of utility balance in efficient choice designs. J Mark Res. 1996;33(3):307–17.
66. Kuhfeld W. Marketing research methods in SAS. Experimental design, choice, conjoint, and graphical techniques. Cary, NC: SAS-Institute TS-722; 2005.
67. Johnson FR, Ozdemir S, Phillips KA. Effects of simplifying choice tasks on estimates of taste heterogeneity in stated-choice surveys. Soc Sci Med. 2010;70(2):183–90.
68. Orme BK. Getting started with conjoint analysis. Madison: Research Publishers LLC; 2006.
69. de Bekker-Grob E, et al. Sample size requirements for discrete-choice experiments in healthcare: a practical guide. Patient. 2015;8(5):373–84.
70. Yang JC, et al. Sample size and utility-difference precision in discrete-choice experiments: a meta-simulation approach. J Choice Model. 2015;16:50–7.
71. Bech M, Gyrd-Hansen D. Effects coding in discrete choice experiments. Health Econ. 2005;14(10):1079–83.
72. Rao VR. Applied conjoint analysis. Berlin: Springer; 2014.
73. Van Houtven G, et al. Eliciting benefit–risk preferences and probability-weighted utility using choice-format conjoint analysis. Med Decis Mak. 2011;31(3):469–80.
74. Swait J, Louviere J. The role of the scale parameter in the estimation and comparison of multinomial logit models. J Mark Res. 1993;30(3):305–14.
75. Orme B. Including holdout choice tasks in conjoint studies. Washington: Sawtooth Software Inc.; 2015.
76. Lancsar E, Louviere J, Flynn T. Several methods to investigate relative attribute impact in stated preference experiments. Soc Sci Med. 2007;64(8):1738–53.