Statistical Methods for the Analysis of Discrete Choice Experiments: A Report of the ISPOR Conjoint Analysis Good Research Practices Task Force

Value in Health

Volumn 19, Issue 4, 2016, Pages 300-315

  Hauber, A Brett ^a   González, Juan Marcos ^a   Groothuis Oudshoorn, Catharina G M ^b   Prior, Thomas ^c   Marshall, Deborah A ^d   Cunningham, Charles ^e   IJzerman, Maarten J ^b   Bridges, John F P ^c  

^a RTI HEALTH SOLUTIONS   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TWENTE   (Netherlands)

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

^d UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY   (Canada)

^e MCMASTER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

conjoint analysis; discrete choice experiment; stated preference methods; statistical analysis

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; DISCRETE CHOICE EXPERIMENT; EXPERIMENT; MEDICAL RESEARCH; MEDICAL SOCIETY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; ADVISORY COMMITTEE; CHECKLIST; DECISION MAKING; HUMAN; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PHARMACOECONOMICS; PROCEDURES; PUBLIC RELATIONS; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; STATISTICAL MODEL;

ANALGESIC AGENT;

ADVISORY COMMITTEES; ANALGESICS; CHECKLIST; CHOICE BEHAVIOR; ECONOMICS, PHARMACEUTICAL; HUMANS; INTERPROFESSIONAL RELATIONS; MODELS, STATISTICAL; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); REGRESSION ANALYSIS;

EID: 84966698437     PISSN: 10983015     EISSN: 15244733     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2016.04.004     Document Type: Article

References (58)

1. [1] Bridges, J., Hauber, A.B., Marshall, D., et al. A checklist for conjoint analysis applications in health: report of the ISPOR Conjoint Analysis Good Research Practices Task Force. Value Health 14 (2011), 403–413.
2. [2] Johnson, F.R., Lancsar, E., Marshall, D., et al. Constructing experimental designs for discrete-choice experiments: report of the ISPOR conjoint analysis experimental design good research practices task force. Value Health 16 (2013), 3–13.
3. [3] Ryan, M., Gerard, K., Using discrete choice experiments to value health care programmes: current practice and future research reflections. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 2 (2003), 55–64.
4. [4] Bridges, J., Kinter, E., Kidane, L., et al. Things are looking up since we started listening to patients: recent trends in the application of conjoint analysis in health 1970–2007. Patient 1 (2008), 273–282.
5. [5] Marshall, D., Bridges, J., Hauber, A.B., et al. 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 3 (2010), 249–256.
6. [6] de Bekker-Grob, E.W., Ryan, M., Gerard, K., Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature. Health Econ 21 (2012), 145–172.
7. [7] Hauber, A.B., Fairchild, A.O., Johnson, F.R., Quantifying benefit-risk preferences for medical interventions: an overview of a growing empirical literature. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 11 (2013), 319–329.
8. [8] Clark, M.D., Determann, D., Petrou, S., et al. Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature. Pharmacoeconomics 32 (2014), 883–902.
9. [9] Ryan, M., Using conjoint analysis to take account of patient preferences and go beyond health outcomes: an application to in vitro fertilisation. Soc Sci Med 48 (1999), 535–546.
10. [10] Longworth, L., Ratcliffe, J., Boulton, M., Investigating women's preferences for intrapartum care: home versus hospital births. Health Soc Care Community 9 (2001), 404–413.
11. [11] Hauber, A.B., Mohamed, A.F., Johnson, F.R., et al. Estimating importance weights for the IWQOL-Lite using conjoint analysis. Qual Life Res 19 (2010), 701–709.
12. [12] Mohamed, A.F., Hauber, A.B., Johnson, F.R., et al. Patient preferences and linear scoring rules for patient-reported outcomes. Patient 3 (2010), 217–227.
13. [13] Marshall, D., McGregor, S.E., Currie, G., Measuring preferences for colorectal cancer screening: what are the implications for moving forward?. Patient 3 (2010), 79–89.
14. [14] Poulos, C., Yang, J.C., Levin, C., et al. Mothers’ preferences and willingness to pay for HPV vaccines in Vinh Long Province, Vietnam. Soc Sci Med 73 (2011), 226–234.
15. [15] van Gils, P.F., Lambooij, M.S., Flanderijn, M.H., et al. Willingness to participate in a lifestyle intervention program of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a conjoint analysis. Patient Prefer Adherence 5 (2011), 537–546.
16. [16] Bridges, J.F., Mohamed, A.F., Finnern, H.W., et al. Patients’ preferences for treatment outcomes for advanced non-small cell lung cancer: a conjoint analysis. Lung Cancer 77 (2012), 224–231.
17. [17] Hauber, A.B., Arden, N.K., Mohamed, A.F., et al. A discrete-choice experiment of United Kingdom patients’ willingness to risk adverse events for improved function and pain control in osteoarthritis. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 21 (2013), 289–297.
18. [18] Ho, M.P., Gonzalez, J.M., Lerner, H.P., et al. Incorporating patient-preference evidence into regulatory decision making. Surg Endosc 29 (2015), 2984–2993.
19. [19] Sanders, P.M.H., IJzerman, M.J., Roach, M.J., et al. Patient preferences for next generation neural prostheses to restore bladder function. Spinal Cord 49 (2010), 113–119.
20. [20] Groothuis-Oudshoorn, C.G.M., Fermont, J.M., van Til, J.A., et al. Public stated preferences and predicted uptake for genome-based colorectal cancer screening. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak, 14, 2014, 18.
21. [21] Plumb, A.A., Boone, D., Fitzke, H., et al. Detection of extracolonic pathologic findings with CT colonography: a discrete choice experiment of perceived benefits versus harms. Radiology 273 (2014), 144–152.
22. [22] Fishman, J., O'Dwyer, P., Lu, H.L., et al. Race, treatment preferences, and hospice enrollment: eligibility criteria may exclude patients with the greatest needs for care. Cancer 115 (2009), 689–697.
23. [23] Hall, J., Kenny, P., Hossain, I., et al. Providing informal care in terminal illness: an analysis of preferences for support using a discrete choice experiment. Med Decis Making 34 (2013), 731–745.
24. [24] Nathan, H., Bridges, J., Cosgrove, D., et al. Treating patients with colon cancer liver metastasis: a nationwide analysis of therapeutic decision-making. Ann Surg Oncol 19 (2012), 3668–3676.
25. [25] Faggioli, G., Scalone, L., Mantovani, L.G., et al. Preferences of patients, their family caregivers and vascular surgeons in the choice of abdominal aortic aneurysms treatment options: the PREFER study. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 42 (2011), 26–34.
26. [26] Arellano, J., Hauber, A.B., Mohamed, A.F., et al. Physicians’ preferences for bone metastases drug therapy in the United States. Value Health 18 (2015), 78–83.
27. [27] Morton, R.L., Snelling, P., Webster, A.C., et al. Dialysis modality preference of patients with CKD and family caregivers: a discrete-choice study. Am J Kidney Dis 60 (2012), 102–111.
28. [28] Honda, A., Ryan, M., van Niekerk, R., et al. Improving the public health sector in South Africa: eliciting public preferences using a discrete choice experiment. Health Policy Plan 30 (2015), 600–611.
29. [29] Regier, D.A., Peacock, S.J., Pataky, R., et al. Societal preferences for the return of incidental findings from clinical genomic sequencing: a discrete-choice experiment. CMAJ 187 (2015), E190–E197.
30. [30] Gray E, Eden M, Vass C, et al. Valuing preferences for the process and outcomes of clinical genetics services: a pilot study. Patient [Epub ahead of print] June 18, 2015.
31. [31] Johnson, P., Bancroft, T., Barron, R., et al. Discrete choice experiment to estimate breast cancer patients’ preferences and willingness to pay for prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factors. Value Health 17 (2014), 380–389.
32. [32] Kauf, T.L., Yang, J.C., Kimball, A.B., et al. Psoriasis patients’ willingness to accept side-effect risks for improved treatment efficacy. J Dermatolog Treat 26 (2015), 507–513.
33. [33] Whitty, J., Filby, A., Smith, A.B., et al. Consumer preferences for scanning modality to diagnose focal liver lesions. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 31 (2015), 27–35.
34. [34] Gonzalez, J.M., Johnson, F.R., Runken, M.C., et al. Evaluating migraineurs’ preferences for migraine treatment outcomes using a choice experiment. Headache 53 (2013), 1635–1650.
35. [35] Ryan, M., Farrar, S., Using conjoint analysis to elicit preferences for health care. BMJ 320 (2000), 1530–1533.
36. [36] Bridges, J., Stated-preference methods in health care evaluation: an emerging methodological paradigm in health economics. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 2 (2003), 213–224.
37. [37] Carlsson, F., Martinsson, P., Design techniques for stated preference methods in health economics. Health Econ 12 (2003), 281–294.
38. [38] Viney, R., Savage, E., Louviere, J., Empirical investigation of experimental design properties of discrete choice experiments in health care. Health Econ 14 (2005), 349–362.
39. [39] Lancsar, E., Louviere, J., Conducting discrete choice experiments to inform healthcare decision making: a user's guide. Pharmacoeconomics 26 (2008), 661–677.
40. [40] Louviere, J., Swait, J., Hensher, D., Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Application. 2000, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
41. [41] Hensher, D.A., Rose, J.M., Greene, W.H., Applied Choice Analysis: A Primer. 2005, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
42. [42] Orme, B.K., Getting Started with Conjoint Analysis: Strategies for Product Design and Pricing Research. 2nd ed., 2010, Research Publishers LLC, Madison, WI.
43. [43] McFadden, D., Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. Zarembka, P., (eds.) Frontiers in Econometrics, 1974, Academic Press, New York, NY, 105–142.
44. [44] Cox, D.R., Snell, E.J., Analysis of Binary Data. 2nd ed., 1989, Chapman & Hall/CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
45. [45] Bech, M., Gyrd-Hansen, D., Effects coding in discrete choice experiments. Health Econ 14 (2005), 1079–1083.
46. [46] Mark, T.L., Swait, J., Using stated preference and revealed preference modeling to evaluate prescribing decisions. Health Econ 13 (2004), 563–573.
47. [47] Swait, J., Louviere, J., The role of the scale parameter in the estimation and comparison of multinomial logit models. J Market Res Soc 30 (1993), 305–314.
48. [48] McFadden, D., Quantitative methods for analyzing travel behaviour on individuals: some recent developments. Hensher, D., Stopher, P., (eds.) Behavioral Travel Modelling, 1978, Croom Helm, London.
49. [49] Hess, S., Rose, J.M., Can scale and coefficient heterogeneity be separated in random coefficients models?. Transportation 39 (2012), 1225–1239.
50. [50] Greene, W.H., Hensher, D.A., Does scale heterogeneity across individuals matter? A comparative assessment of logit models. Transportation 37 (2010), 413–428.
51. [51] Ben-Akiva, M., Lerman, S.R., Discrete Choice Analysis: Theory and Application to Travel Demand. 1985, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
52. [52] Whitty, J.A., Ratcliffe, J., Chen, G., et al. Australian public preferences for the funding of new health technologies: a comparison of discrete choice and profile case best-worst scaling methods. Med Decis Making 34 (2014), 638–654.
53. [53] Allenby, G., Rossi, P., Marketing models of consumer heterogeneity. J Econom 89 (1999), 57–78.
54. [54] Allenby, G., Lenk, P., Modeling household purchase behavior with logistic normal regression. J Am Stat Assoc 89 (1994), 1218–1231.
55. [55] Train, K., Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation. 2003, Cambridge University Press, New York, NY.
56. [56] Huber, J., Train, K.E., On the similarity of classical and Bayesian estimates of individual mean partworths. Mark Lett 12 (2001), 259–269.
57. [57] Regier, D.A., Ryan, M., Phimister, E., et al. Bayesian and classical estimation of mixed logit: an application to genetic testing. J Health Econ 28 (2009), 598–610.
58. [58] Dziak JJ, Coffman DL, Lanza ST, Li R. Sensitivity and specificity of information criteria. Methodology Center Technical Report #12-119. Penn State ScholarSphere. 2012. Available from: https://methodology.psu.edu/media/techreports/12-119.pdf. [Accessed March 19, 2016].