nach oben

The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research

Erschienen in:

01.06.2018 | Systematic Review

A Systematic Review Comparing the Acceptability, Validity and Concordance of Discrete Choice Experiments and Best–Worst Scaling for Eliciting Preferences in Healthcare

verfasst von: Jennifer A. Whitty, Ana Sofia Oliveira Gonçalves

Erschienen in: The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research | Ausgabe 3/2018

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Objective

The aim of this study was to compare the acceptability, validity and concordance of discrete choice experiment (DCE) and best–worst scaling (BWS) stated preference approaches in health.

Methods

A systematic search of EMBASE, Medline, AMED, PubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane Library and EconLit databases was undertaken in October to December 2016 without date restriction. Studies were included if they were published in English, presented empirical data related to the administration or findings of traditional format DCE and object-, profile- or multiprofile-case BWS, and were related to health. Study quality was assessed using the PREFS checklist.

Results

Fourteen articles describing 12 studies were included, comparing DCE with profile-case BWS (9 studies), DCE and multiprofile-case BWS (1 study), and profile- and multiprofile-case BWS (2 studies). Although limited and inconsistent, the balance of evidence suggests that preferences derived from DCE and profile-case BWS may not be concordant, regardless of the decision context. Preferences estimated from DCE and multiprofile-case BWS may be concordant (single study). Profile- and multiprofile-case BWS appear more statistically efficient than DCE, but no evidence is available to suggest they have a greater response efficiency. Little evidence suggests superior validity for one format over another. Participant acceptability may favour DCE, which had a lower self-reported task difficulty and was preferred over profile-case BWS in a priority setting but not necessarily in other decision contexts.

Conclusion

DCE and profile-case BWS may be of equal validity but give different preference estimates regardless of the health context; thus, they may be measuring different constructs. Therefore, choice between methods is likely to be based on normative considerations related to coherence with theoretical frameworks and on pragmatic considerations related to ease of data collection.

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

de Bekker-Grob EW, Ryan M, Gerard K. Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature. Health Econ. 2012;21(2):145–72. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.1697.CrossRefPubMed

Cheung KL, Wijnen BF, Hollin IL, Janssen EM, Bridges JF, Evers SMAA, Hiligsmann M. Using best–worst scaling to investigate preferences in health Care. PharmacoEconomics. 2016;34:1195–209.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Whitty JA, Lancsar E, Rixon K, Golenko X, Ratcliffe J. A systematic review of stated preference studies reporting public preferences for healthcare priority setting. Patient. 2014;7(4):365–86.CrossRefPubMed

Whitty JA, Ratcliffe J, Kendall E, Burton P, Wilson A, Littlejohns P, et al. Prioritising patients for bariatric surgery: building public preferences from a discrete choice experiment into public policy. BMJ Open. 2015;5(10):e008919. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2015-008919.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Marsh K, Ijzerman M, Thokala P, Baltussen R, Boysen M, Kalo Z, et al. Multiple criteria decision analysis for health care decision making—emerging good practices: report 2 of the ISPOR MCDA Emerging Good Practices Task Force. Value Health. 2016;19(2):125–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2015.12.016.CrossRefPubMed

Thokala P, Devlin N, Marsh K, Baltussen R, Boysen M, Kalo Z, et al. Multiple criteria decision analysis for health care decision making—an introduction: report 1 of the ISPOR MCDA Emerging Good Practices Task Force. Value Health. 2016;19(1):1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2015.12.003.CrossRefPubMed

Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Torrance GW, O’Brien B, Stoddart GL. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. 3rd ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 2005.

Nord E, Street A, Richardson J, Kuhse H, Singer P. The significance of age and duration of effect in social evaluation of health care. Health Care Anal. 1996;4(2):103–11.CrossRefPubMed

Olsen JA, Donaldson C. Helicopters, hearts and hips: using willingness to pay to set priorities for public sector health care programmes. Soc Sci Med. 1998;46(1):1–12.CrossRefPubMed

10.

Ryan M, Scott DA, Reeves C, Bate A, van Teijlingen ER, Russell EM, et al. Eliciting public preferences for healthcare: a systematic review of techniques. Health Technol Assess. 2001;5(5):1–186.CrossRefPubMed

11.

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.PubMed

12.

Clark MD, Determann D, Petrou S, Moro D, de Bekker-Grob EW. Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature. PharmacoEconomics. 2014;32(9):883–902. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-014-0170-x.CrossRefPubMed

13.

Thurstone LL. A law of comparative judgment. Psychol Rev. 1994;101(2):266–70. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.101.2.266.CrossRef

14.

McFadden D. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. In: Zarembka P, editor. Frontiers in econometrics. New York: Academic Press; 1974.

15.

Louviere JJ, Flynn TN. Using best–worst scaling choice experiments to measure public perceptions and preferences for healthcare reform in Australia. Patient. 2010;3(4):275–83.CrossRefPubMed

16.

Lancaster KJ. A new approach to consumer theory. J Polit Econ. 1966;74:132–57. https://doi.org/10.1086/259131.CrossRef

17.

Whitty JA, Ratcliffe J, Chen G, Scuffham PA. 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. 2014;34(5):638–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989x14526640.CrossRefPubMed

18.

Finn A, Louviere JJ. Determining the appropriate response to evidence of public concern: the case of food safety. J Public Policy Mark. 1992;11(1):12–5.

19.

Louviere JJ, Woodworth GG. Best–worst scaling: a model for largest difference judgments, Working Paper. Faculty of Business, University of Alberta; 1990.

20.

Marley AAJ, Louviere JJ. Some probabilistic models of best, worst, and best–worst choices. J Math Psychol. 2005;49(6):464–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmp.2005.05.003.CrossRef

21.

Louviere JJ, Flynn TN, Marley AAJ. Best–worst scaling: theory, methods and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2015.CrossRef

22.

Flynn TN. Valuing citizen and patient preferences in health: recent developments in three types of best–worst scaling. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2010;10(3):259–67. https://doi.org/10.1586/erp.10.29.CrossRefPubMed

23.

Cheung KL, Wijnen BF, Hollin IL, Janssen EM, Bridges JF, Evers SM, et al. Using best–worst scaling to investigate preferences in health care. Pharmacoeconomics. 2016;34(12):1195–209. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-016-0429-5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

24.

Ratcliffe J, Flynn T, Terlich F, Stevens K, Brazier J, Sawyer M. Developing adolescent-specific health state values for economic evaluation: an application of profile case best–worst scaling to the child health utility 9D. Pharmacoeconomics. 2012;30(8):713–27. https://doi.org/10.2165/11597900-000000000-00000.CrossRefPubMed

25.

Al-Janabi H, Flynn TN, Coast J. Estimation of a preference-based carer experience scale. Med Decis Making. 2011;31:458–68. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X10381280.CrossRefPubMed

26.

Flynn TN, Louviere JJ, Peters TJ, Coast J. Estimating preferences for a dermatology consultation using Best–Worst Scaling: comparison of various methods of analysis. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2008;8:76. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-8-76.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

27.

Yoo HI, Doiron D. The use of alternative preference elicitation methods in complex discrete choice experiments. J Health Econ. 2013;32(6):1166–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhealeco.2013.09.009.CrossRefPubMed

28.

Coast J, Flynn TN, Natarajan L, Sproston K, Lewis J, Louviere JJ, et al. Valuing the ICECAP capability index for older people. Soc Sci Med. 2008;67(5):874–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2008.05.015.CrossRefPubMed

29.

Coast J, Salisbury C, de Berker D, Noble A, Horrocks S, Peters TJ, et al. Preferences for aspects of a dermatology consultation. Br J Dermatol. 2006;155(2):387–92.CrossRefPubMed

30.

Cameron MP, Newman PA, Roungprakhon S, Scarpa R. The marginal willingness-to-pay for attributes of a hypothetical HIV vaccine. Vaccine. 2013;31(36):3712–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2013.05.089.CrossRefPubMed

31.

Lancsar E, Louviere J, Donaldson C, Currie G, Burgess L. Best worst discrete choice experiments in health: methods and an application. Soc Sci Med. 2013;76(1):74–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2012.10.007.CrossRefPubMed

32.

Bridges JF, Hauber AB, Marshall D, Lloyd A, Prosser LA, Regier DA, 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2010.11.013.CrossRefPubMed

33.

Louviere J, Lings I, Islam T, Gudergan S, Flynn T. An introduction to the application of (case 1) best–worst scaling in marketing research. Int J Res Mark. 2013;30(3):292–303. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2012.10.002.CrossRef

34.

Flynn TN, Louviere JJ, Peters TJ, Coast J. Best–worst scaling: what it can do for health care research and how to do it. J Health Econ. 2007;26(1):171–89.CrossRefPubMed

35.

Krucien N, Watson V, Ryan M. Is best–worst scaling suitable for health state valuation? A comparison with discrete choice experiments. Health Econ. 2016. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.3459.

36.

Mühlbacher AC, Bethge S. Patients’ preferences: a discrete-choice experiment for treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer. Eur J Health Econ. 2015;16(6):657–70. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-014-0622-4.CrossRefPubMed

37.

Johnson RF, Lancsar E, Marshall D, Kilambi V, Muhlbacher A, Regier DA 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;16:3–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2012.08.2223.CrossRef

38.

Lancsar E, Swait J. Reconceptualising the external validity of discrete choice experiments. PharmacoEconomics. 2014;32(10):951–65. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-014-0181-7.CrossRefPubMed

39.

Mas-Colell A, Green JR. Microeconomic theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1995.

40.

Joy SM, Little E, Maruthur NM, Purnell TS, Bridges JFP. Patient preferences for the treatment of type 2 diabetes: a scoping review. PharmacoEconomics. 2013;31(10):877–92. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-013-0089-7.CrossRefPubMed

41.

Whitty JA, Walker R, Golenko X, Ratcliffe J. A think aloud study comparing the validity and acceptability of discrete choice and best worst scaling methods. PLoS One. 2014;9(4):e90635. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0090635.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

42.

Netten A, Burge P, Malley J, Potoglou D, Towers AM, Brazier J, Flynn T, Forder J, Wall B. Outcomes of social care for adults: Developing a preference-weighted measure. Health Technol Assess. 2012;16(16):1–166.CrossRefPubMed

43.

Potoglou D, Burge P, Flynn T, Netten A, Malley J, Forder J, Brazier J. Best–worst scaling vs. discrete choice experiments: an empirical comparison using social care data. Soc Sci Med. 2011;72(10):1717–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.03.027.CrossRefPubMed

44.

Coast J, Huynh E, Kinghorn P, Flynn T. Complex valuation: applying ideas from the complex intervention framework to valuation of a new measure for end-of-life care. PharmacoEconomics. 2016;34(5):499–508. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-015-0365-9.CrossRefPubMed

45.

Flynn TN, Peters TJ, Coast J. Quantifying response shift or adaptation effects in quality of life by synthesising best–worst scaling and discrete choice data. J Choice Model. 2013;6:34–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocm.2013.04.004.CrossRef

46.

Hollin IL, Peay HL, Bridges JF. Caregiver preferences for emerging duchenne muscular dystrophy treatments: a comparison of best–worst scaling and conjoint analysis. Patient. 2014;8(1):19–27.CrossRef

47.

Janssen EM, Segal JB, Bridges JF. A framework for instrument development of a choice experiment: an application to type 2 diabetes. Patient. 2016;9(5):465–79.CrossRefPubMed

48.

Severin F, Schmidtke J, Muhlbacher A, Rogowski WH. Eliciting preferences for priority setting in genetic testing: a pilot study comparing best–worst scaling and discrete-choice experiments. Eur J Hum Genet. 2013;21(11):1202–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

49.

van Dijk JD, Groothuis-Oudshoom CGM, Marshall DA, Ijzerman MJ. An empirical comparison of discrete choice experiment and best–worst scaling to estimate stakeholders’ risk tolerance for hip replacement surgery. Value Health. 2016;19(4):316–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2015.12.020.CrossRefPubMed

50.

Xie F, Pullenayegum E, Gaebel K, Oppe M, Krabbe PF. Eliciting preferences to the EQ-5D-5L health states: discrete choice experiment or multiprofile case of best–worst scaling? Eur J Health Econ. 2014;15(3):281–8.CrossRefPubMed

51.

Weernink MG, Groothuis-Oudshoom CG, Ijzerman MJ, van Til JA. Valuing treatments for Parkinson disease incorporating process utility: performance of best–worst scaling, time trade-off, and visual analogue scales. Value Health. 2016;19(2):226–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2015.11.011.CrossRefPubMed

52.

Ryan M, Watson V, Entwistle V. Rationalising the ‘irrational’: a think aloud study of discrete choice experiment responses. Health Econ. 2009;18:321–6. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.1369.CrossRefPubMed

53.

Lancsar E, Louviere J. Deleting ‘irrational’ responses from discrete choice experiments: a case of investigating or imposing preferences? Health Econ. 2006;15:797–811. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.1104.CrossRefPubMed

54.

Whitty JA, Ratcliffe J, Chen G, Scuffham PA. 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. 2014;34:638–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X14526640.CrossRefPubMed

55.

Stafinski T, Menon D, Philippon DJ, McCabe C. Health technology funding decision-making processes around the world: the same, yet different. Pharmacoeconomics. 2011;29(6):475–95. https://doi.org/10.2165/11586420-000000000-00000.CrossRefPubMed

56.

Yoongthong W, Hu S, Whitty JA, Wibulpolprasert S, Sukantho K, Thienthawee W, et al. National drug policies to local formulary decisions in Thailand, china, and australia: drug listing changes and opportunities. Value Health. 2012;15(1 Suppl):S126–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2011.11.003.CrossRefPubMed

57.

Dolan P, Gudex C, Kind P, Williams A. Valuing health states: a comparison of methods. J Health Econ. 1996;15(2):209–31.CrossRefPubMed

58.

Arnold D, Girling A, Stevens A, Lilford R. Comparison of direct and indirect methods of estimating health state utilities for resource allocation: review and empirical analysis. BMJ. 2009;339:b2688. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.b2688.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

59.

Muhlbacher AC, Kaczynski A, Zweifel P, Johnson FR. Experimental measurement of preferences in health and healthcare using best–worst scaling: an overview. Health Econ Rev. 2016;6(1):1–14.CrossRef

60.

Louviere JJ, Lancsar E. Choice experiments in health: the good, the bad, the ugly and toward a brighter future. Health Econ Policy Law. 2009;4(4):527–46. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1744133109990193.CrossRefPubMed

Titel: A Systematic Review Comparing the Acceptability, Validity and Concordance of Discrete Choice Experiments and Best–Worst Scaling for Eliciting Preferences in Healthcare
verfasst von: Jennifer A. Whitty
Ana Sofia Oliveira Gonçalves
Publikationsdatum: 01.06.2018
Verlag: Springer International Publishing
Erschienen in: The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research / Ausgabe 3/2018
Print ISSN: 1178-1653
Elektronische ISSN: 1178-1661
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-017-0288-y

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 3/2018

Satisfaction with Subcutaneous Golimumab and its Auto-Injector among Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients with Inadequate Response to Adalimumab or Etanercept

Experience-Based Values: A Framework for Classifying Different Types of Experience in Health Valuation Research

Mapping Quality of Life (EQ-5D) from DAPsA, Clinical DAPsA and HAQ in Psoriatic Arthritis

Engagement of Canadian Patients with Rare Diseases and Their Families in the Lifecycle of Therapy: A Qualitative Study

Evaluating Risk Tolerance from a Systematic Review of Preferences: The Case of Patients with Psoriasis

Impact of Canagliflozin Treatment on Health-Related Quality of Life among People with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Pooled Analysis of Patient-Reported Outcomes from Randomized Controlled Trials