nach oben

The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research

Erschienen in:

01.10.2016 | Commentary

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”

verfasst von: Eve Wittenberg

Erschienen in: The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research | Ausgabe 5/2016

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Excerpt

Patients are the ultimate source of what they want, desire, and value. To truly understand patients and their preferences, we need to go directly to them. Asking patients what they prefer is superior to observing what they actually choose (in economic parlance, revealed choices) because actual choices are constrained by the range of options available. Hence asking patients what they want, although hypothetical by definition, can provide information about their values free from the constraints of actual choice. …

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;32:883–902.CrossRefPubMed

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;14:403–13.CrossRefPubMed

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;16:3–13.CrossRefPubMed

Hauber A, Gonzalez J, Groothius-Oudshoorn 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.CrossRefPubMed

Coast J, Flynn TN, Natarajan L, et al. Valuing the ICECAP capability index for older people. Soc Sci Med. 2008;67:874–82.CrossRefPubMed

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. 2015;8:423–31.CrossRefPubMed

Peay HL, Hollin I, Fischer R, Bridges JF. A community-engaged approach to quantifying caregiver preferences for the benefits and risks of emerging therapies for Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Clin Ther. 2014;36:624–37.CrossRefPubMed

Ross M, Bridges JF, Ng X, et al. A best-worst scaling experiment to prioritize caregiver concerns about ADHD medication for children. Psychiatr Serv. 2015;66:208–11.CrossRefPubMed

Wittenberg E, Bharel M, Saada A, Santiago E, Bridges JF, Weinreb L. Measuring the preferences of homeless women for cervical cancer screening interventions: development of a best-worst scaling survey. Patient. 2015;8:455–67.CrossRefPubMed

10.

O’Hara NN, Roy L, O’Hara LM, et al. Healthcare worker preferences for active tuberculosis case finding programs in South Africa: a best-worst scaling choice experiment. PLoS One. 2015;10:e0133304.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

11.

Janssen EM, Segal JB, Bridges JF. A framework for instrument development of a choice experiment: an application to type 2 diabetes. Patient. 2016. doi:10.1007/s40271-016-0170-3.

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;21:730–41.CrossRefPubMed

13.

Flynn TN, Louviere JJ, Marley AA, Coast J, Peters TJ. Rescaling quality of life values from discrete choice experiments for use as QALYs: a cautionary tale. Popul Health Metr. 2008;6:6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Titel: 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”
verfasst von: Eve Wittenberg
Publikationsdatum: 01.10.2016
Verlag: Springer International Publishing
Erschienen in: The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research / Ausgabe 5/2016
Print ISSN: 1178-1653
Elektronische ISSN: 1178-1661
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-016-0186-8

Live-Webinar "Urologie und Sexualmedizin in der Praxis"

Springer Medizin

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”

Excerpt

Live-Webinar "Urologie und Sexualmedizin in der Praxis"

Springer Medizin

Excerpt

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

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 5/2016

How Well Can Analytic Hierarchy Process be Used to Elicit Individual Preferences? Insights from a Survey in Patients Suffering from Age-Related Macular Degeneration

The Patient Voice: At the Intersection of a US Regulatory Revolution

Development and Psychometric Evaluation of the Hypoglycemia Perspectives Questionnaire in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

Cognitive Testing of an Electronic Version of the Faces Pain Scale-Revised with Pediatric and Adolescent Sickle Cell Patients

Addressing Medicaid Expansion from the Perspective of Patient Experience in Hospitals

Support for Living a Meaningful Life with Osteoarthritis: A Patient-to-Patient Research Study