Skip to main content
Erschienen in: The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research 4/2017

01.08.2017 | Editorial

Art and Science of Instrument Development for Stated-Preference Methods

verfasst von: Ellen M. Janssen, John F. P. Bridges

Erschienen in: The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research | Ausgabe 4/2017

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Excerpt

Ryden et al. [1] contribute to a growing literature on instrument development as it pertains specifically to stated-preference methods. In their article “Discrete choice experiment attribute selection using a multinational interview study: treatment features important to patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus”, they describe how they used both literature reviews and qualitative methods to inform the development of a discrete-choice experiment. Such articles have received more attention as researchers seek to be more transparent on the development of their studies [24]. Guidance by the US Food and Drug Administration has emphasized the need for patient-preference studies to be patient centered, relevant, and understandable with limited bias in the interpretation of choice tasks [5]. These types of study qualities can only be ensured through deliberate instrument development. …
Literatur
1.
Zurück zum Zitat Ryden A, Chen S, Flood E, Romero B, Grandy S. Discrete choice experiment attribute selection using a multinational interview study: treatment features important to patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Patient. 2017. doi:10.1007/s40271-017-0225-0. [Epub ahead of print]. Ryden A, Chen S, Flood E, Romero B, Grandy S. Discrete choice experiment attribute selection using a multinational interview study: treatment features important to patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Patient. 2017. doi:10.​1007/​s40271-017-0225-0. [Epub ahead of print].
2.
Zurück zum Zitat Oakes AH, Garmo V, Bone LR, Longo DR, Segal JB, Bridges JFP. Developing a stated-preference instrument to quantitatively assess the barriers and facilitators to the self-management of type 2 diabetes. Patient. 2017. doi:10.1007/s40271-017-0248-6. [Epub ahead of print]. Oakes AH, Garmo V, Bone LR, Longo DR, Segal JB, Bridges JFP. Developing a stated-preference instrument to quantitatively assess the barriers and facilitators to the self-management of type 2 diabetes. Patient. 2017. doi:10.​1007/​s40271-017-0248-6. [Epub ahead of print].
4.
Zurück zum Zitat O’Hara NN, Roy L, O’Hara LM, Spiegel JM, Lynd LD, FitzGerald JM, et al. Healthcare worker preferences for active tuberculosis case finding programs in South Africa: a best-worst scaling choice experiment. PLoS One. 2015;10(7):e0133304.CrossRef O’Hara NN, Roy L, O’Hara LM, Spiegel JM, Lynd LD, FitzGerald JM, et al. Healthcare worker preferences for active tuberculosis case finding programs in South Africa: a best-worst scaling choice experiment. PLoS One. 2015;10(7):e0133304.CrossRef
6.
Zurück zum Zitat Vass C, Rigby D, Payne K. The role of qualitative research methods in discrete choice experiments: a systematic review and survey of authors. Med Decis Making. 2017;37(3):298–313.CrossRef Vass C, Rigby D, Payne K. The role of qualitative research methods in discrete choice experiments: a systematic review and survey of authors. Med Decis Making. 2017;37(3):298–313.CrossRef
7.
Zurück zum Zitat 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. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2010.11.013.CrossRefPubMed 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. doi:10.​1016/​j.​jval.​2010.​11.​013.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Zurück zum Zitat Johnson FR, Lancsar E, Marshall D, Kilambi V, Mühlbacher 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(1):3–13. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2012.08.2223.CrossRef Johnson FR, Lancsar E, Marshall D, Kilambi V, Mühlbacher 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(1):3–13. doi:10.​1016/​j.​jval.​2012.​08.​2223.CrossRef
9.
Zurück zum Zitat Hauber AB, Gonzalez JM, Groothuis-Oudshoorn CG, Prior T, Marshall DA, Cunningham C, et al. Statistical methods for the analysis of discrete choice experiments: a report of the ISPOR Conjoint Analysis Good Research Practices Task Force. Value Health. 2016;19(4):300–15. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2016.04.004.CrossRefPubMed Hauber AB, Gonzalez JM, Groothuis-Oudshoorn CG, Prior T, Marshall DA, Cunningham C, et al. Statistical methods for the analysis of discrete choice experiments: a report of the ISPOR Conjoint Analysis Good Research Practices Task Force. Value Health. 2016;19(4):300–15. doi:10.​1016/​j.​jval.​2016.​04.​004.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Zurück zum Zitat Coast J, Al-Janabi H, Sutton EJ, Horrocks SA, Vosper AJ, Swancutt DR, et al. Using qualitative methods for attribute development for discrete choice experiments: issues and recommendations. Health Econ. 2012;21(6):730–41. doi:10.1002/hec.1739.CrossRefPubMed Coast J, Al-Janabi H, Sutton EJ, Horrocks SA, Vosper AJ, Swancutt DR, et al. Using qualitative methods for attribute development for discrete choice experiments: issues and recommendations. Health Econ. 2012;21(6):730–41. doi:10.​1002/​hec.​1739.CrossRefPubMed
12.
Zurück zum Zitat DosReis S, Castillo WC, Ross M, Fitz-Randolph M, Vaughn-Lee A, Butler B. Attribute development using continuous stakeholder engagement to prioritize treatment decisions: a framework for patient-centered research. Value Health. 2016;19(6):758–66. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2016.02.013.CrossRefPubMed DosReis S, Castillo WC, Ross M, Fitz-Randolph M, Vaughn-Lee A, Butler B. Attribute development using continuous stakeholder engagement to prioritize treatment decisions: a framework for patient-centered research. Value Health. 2016;19(6):758–66. doi:10.​1016/​j.​jval.​2016.​02.​013.CrossRefPubMed
15.
Zurück zum Zitat Aristides M, Weston AR, FitzGerald P, Le Reun C, Maniadakis N. Patient preference and willingness-to-pay for Humalog Mix25 relative to Humulin 30/70: a multicountry application of a discrete choice experiment. Value Health. 2004;7(4):442–54.CrossRef Aristides M, Weston AR, FitzGerald P, Le Reun C, Maniadakis N. Patient preference and willingness-to-pay for Humalog Mix25 relative to Humulin 30/70: a multicountry application of a discrete choice experiment. Value Health. 2004;7(4):442–54.CrossRef
20.
Zurück zum Zitat Peay HL, Hollin I, Fischer R, Bridges JFP. A community-engaged approach to quantifying caregiver preferences for the benefits and risks of emerging therapies for Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Clin Ther. 2014;36(5):624–37.CrossRef Peay HL, Hollin I, Fischer R, Bridges JFP. A community-engaged approach to quantifying caregiver preferences for the benefits and risks of emerging therapies for Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Clin Ther. 2014;36(5):624–37.CrossRef
21.
Zurück zum Zitat dosReis S, Ng X, Frosch E, Reeves G, Cunningham C, Bridges JF. Using best-worst scaling to measure caregiver preferences for managing their child’s ADHD: a pilot study. Patient. 2014;8(5):423–31. doi:10.1007/s40271-014-0098-4.CrossRef dosReis S, Ng X, Frosch E, Reeves G, Cunningham C, Bridges JF. Using best-worst scaling to measure caregiver preferences for managing their child’s ADHD: a pilot study. Patient. 2014;8(5):423–31. doi:10.​1007/​s40271-014-0098-4.CrossRef
22.
Zurück zum Zitat Wittenberg E. Instrument development in choice experiments. Commentary on: “Applying a framework for instrument development of a choice experiment to measure treatment preferences in type 2 diabetes”. Patient. 2016;9(5):379–81. doi:10.1007/s40271-016-0186-8.CrossRefPubMed Wittenberg E. Instrument development in choice experiments. Commentary on: “Applying a framework for instrument development of a choice experiment to measure treatment preferences in type 2 diabetes”. Patient. 2016;9(5):379–81. doi:10.​1007/​s40271-016-0186-8.CrossRefPubMed
Metadaten
Titel
Art and Science of Instrument Development for Stated-Preference Methods
verfasst von
Ellen M. Janssen
John F. P. Bridges
Publikationsdatum
01.08.2017
Verlag
Springer International Publishing
Erschienen in
The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research / Ausgabe 4/2017
Print ISSN: 1178-1653
Elektronische ISSN: 1178-1661
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-017-0261-9

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 4/2017

The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research 4/2017 Zur Ausgabe