Using qualitative research to facilitate the interpretation of quantitative results from a discrete choice experiment: Insights from a survey in elderly ophthalmologic patients

Patient Preference and Adherence

Volumn 10, Issue , 2016, Pages 993-1002

  Vennedey, Vera ^a   Danner, Marion ^a   Evers, Silvia Maa ^b,c   Fauser, Sascha ^a   Stock, Stephanie ^a   Dirksen, Carmen D ^d   Hiligsmann, Mickaël ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL OF COLOGNE   (Germany)

^b MAASTRICHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^c NETHERLANDS INSTITUTE OF MENTAL HEALTH AND ADDICTION   (Netherlands)

^d MAASTRICHT UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Age related macular degeneration; Discrete choice experiment; Intravitreal injection; Patient preferences; Qualitative research

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGE RELATED MACULAR DEGENERATION; AGED; ARTICLE; BAYES THEOREM; CONTROLLED STUDY; DETERIORATION; DISCRETE CHOICE EXPERIMENT; FEMALE; HUMAN; INTERVIEW; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PATIENT CARE; PATIENT MONITORING; PATIENT PREFERENCE; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH; QUANTITATIVE STUDY; TASK PERFORMANCE; VISION;

EID: 84975257959     PISSN: None     EISSN: 1177889X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2147/PPA.S101584     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Wong WL, Su X, Li X, et al. Global prevalence of age-related macular degeneration and disease burden projection for 2020 and 2040: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Glob Health. 2014;2(2):e106–e116.
2. Muether PS, Hermann MM, Koch K, Fauser S. Delay between medical indication to anti-VEGF treatment in age-related macular degeneration can result in a loss of visual acuity. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2011;249(5):633–637.
3. Real JP, Granero GE, De Santis MO, et al. Rate of vision loss in neovascular age-related macular degeneration explored. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2015;253(11):1859–1865.
4. Wenzel M, Auffarth G, Scharrer A, Schayan K, Reinhard T. Ambulante und stationäre Intraokularchirurgie 2013: Ergebnisse der Umfrage von BDOC, BVA, DGII und DOG [Inpatient and outpatient intraocular surgery 2013: results of a survey among BDOC, BVA, DGII and DOG]. Ophthalmo-Chirurgie. 2014;26:171–182. German.
5. European Medicines Agency [homepage on the Internet]. Summary of the European public assessment report (EPAR) for Lucentis (ranibizumab). EMA; 2008 [updated November 13, 2015]. Available from: http://www.ema.europa.eu/ema/index.jsp?curl=pages/medicines/human/medicines/000715/human_med_000890.jsp&mid=WC0b01ac058001d124. Accessed March 31, 2016.
6. European Medicines Agency [homepage on the Internet]. Summary of the European public assessment report (EPAR) for Eylea (aflibercept). EMA; 2012 [updated February 4, 2016]. Available from: http://www.ema.europa.eu/ema/index.jsp?curl=pages/medicines/human/medicines/002392/human_med_001598.jsp&mid=WC0b01ac058001d124. Accessed March 31, 2016.
7. Moja L, Lucenteforte E, Kwag KH, et al. Systemic safety of bevacizumab versus ranibizumab for neovascular age-related macular degeneration. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;9:CD011230.
8. Droege KM, Caramoy A, Kersten A, et al. Patient preference of ranibizumab treatment regimen for neovascular age-related macular degeneration – monthly injections versus pro re nata. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2014;252(1):31–34.
9. Droege KM, Muether PS, Hermann MM, et al. Adherence to ranibizumab treatment for neovascular age-related macular degeneration in real life. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2012;251(5):1281–1284.
10. Bridges JF, Hauber AB, Marshall D, 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):403–413.
11. Reed Johnson F, 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. 2013;16(1):3–13.
12. Coast J, Al-Janabi H, Sutton EJ, et al. Using qualitative methods for attribute development for discrete choice experiments: issues and recommendations. Health Econ. 2012;21(6):730–741.
13. 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.
14. Danner M, Vennedy V, Hiligsmann M, Fauser S, Stock S. Focus Groups in Elderly Ophthalmologic Patients: Setting the Stage for Quantitative Preference Elicitation. Patient. 2016;9(1):47–57.
15. Ryan M, Gerard K, Amaya-Amaya M. Using discrete choice experiments to value health and health care. Vol 11. Dordrecht: Springer Science & Business Media; 2007.
16. Orme BK. Getting started with conjoint analysis. Madison, WI: Research Publishers LLC; 2006.
17. Bech M, Gyrd-Hansen D. Effects coding in discrete choice experiments. Health Econ. 2005;14(10):1079–1083.
18. Feller W. An introduction to probability theory and its applications. Vol 1, 3rd ed. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.; 1968
19. Altman DG, Bland JM. How to obtain the P value from a confidence interval. BMJ. 2011;343:d2304.
20. Ryan M, Watson V, Entwistle V. Rationalising the ‘irrational’: a think aloud study of discrete choice experiment responses. Health Econ. 2009;18(3):321–336.
21. Lancsar E, Louviere J. Deleting ‘irrational’ responses from discrete choice experiments: a case of investigating or imposing preferences? Health Econ. 2006;15(8):797–811.
22. de Bekker-Grob EW, Donkers B, Jonker MF, Stolk EA. Sample Size Requirements for Discrete-Choice Experiments in Healthcare: a Practical Guide. Patient. 2015;8(5):373–384.
23. Sackett DL, Rosenberg WM, Gray J, Haynes RB, Richardson WS. Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn’t. BMJ. 1996;312(7023):71–72.