Skip to main content
Erschienen in: The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research 4/2010

01.12.2010 | Short Communication

Patient Preferences and Linear Scoring Rules for Patient-Reported Outcomes

verfasst von: Ms Ateesha F. Mohamed, A. Brett Hauber, F. Reed Johnson, Cheryl D. Coon

Erschienen in: The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research | Ausgabe 4/2010

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Background: Many patient-reported outcomes (PRO) instruments are scored by averaging or summing Likert category values over all items or domains of the elicitation instrument, yielding domain-specific scores or a total score for the entire instrument.
Objective: To evaluate differences between conventional linear and preference-weighted scores for PRO instruments used in asthma, oncology, and obesity.
Methods: We estimated preference-weighted scores for all the items and response categories in the Onset-of-Effect Questionnaire (OEQ), the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ)-C30, and the Impact of Weight on Quality of Life Questionnaire-Lite version (IWQOL-Lite) using choice-format conjoint analysis, known also as discrete-choice experiments.
Results: Conventional linear scoring rules can overstate the relative importance to patients of improvements in some domains and understate the relative importance of improvements in other domains.
Conclusions: Patient preference-weighted scores estimated by conjoint-analysis methods allow for non-linearities and account for the relative contribution of individual items and domains to patient well-being. Conventional linear scores and preference-weighted scores can result in different conclusions about the size of patient-reported treatment effects.
Literatur
1.
Zurück zum Zitat Kolotkin RL, Crosby RD, Kosloski KD, et al. Development of a brief measure to assess quality of life in obesity. Obes Res 2001; 9(2): 102–11PubMedCrossRef Kolotkin RL, Crosby RD, Kosloski KD, et al. Development of a brief measure to assess quality of life in obesity. Obes Res 2001; 9(2): 102–11PubMedCrossRef
2.
Zurück zum Zitat Kolotkin RL, Crosby RD. Psychometric evaluation of the impact of weight on quality of life-lite questionnaire (IWQOL-Lite) in a community sample. Qual Life Res 2002; 11: 157–71PubMedCrossRef Kolotkin RL, Crosby RD. Psychometric evaluation of the impact of weight on quality of life-lite questionnaire (IWQOL-Lite) in a community sample. Qual Life Res 2002; 11: 157–71PubMedCrossRef
3.
Zurück zum Zitat Bateman I, Carson R, Day B, et al. Economic valuation with stated preference techniques. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2002 Bateman I, Carson R, Day B, et al. Economic valuation with stated preference techniques. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2002
4.
Zurück zum Zitat Bennett J, Adamowicz V. Some fundamentals of environmental choice modeling. In: Bennett J, Blamey R, editors. The choice modeling approach to environmental valuation. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2001 Bennett J, Adamowicz V. Some fundamentals of environmental choice modeling. In: Bennett J, Blamey R, editors. The choice modeling approach to environmental valuation. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2001
5.
Zurück zum Zitat Cattin P, Wittink D. Commercial use of conjoint analysis: a survey. J Mark 1982; 46: 44–53CrossRef Cattin P, Wittink D. Commercial use of conjoint analysis: a survey. J Mark 1982; 46: 44–53CrossRef
6.
Zurück zum Zitat Holmes T, Adamowicz V. Attribute-based methods. In: Champ P, Boyle K, Brown T, editors. A primer on nonmarket valuation. Norwell: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2003 Holmes T, Adamowicz V. Attribute-based methods. In: Champ P, Boyle K, Brown T, editors. A primer on nonmarket valuation. Norwell: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2003
7.
Zurück zum Zitat Louviere J. Conjoint analysis modeling of stated preferences: a review of theory, methods, recent developments and external validity. J Transport Econ Policy 1988; 10: 93–119 Louviere J. Conjoint analysis modeling of stated preferences: a review of theory, methods, recent developments and external validity. J Transport Econ Policy 1988; 10: 93–119
8.
Zurück zum Zitat Louviere J, Swait J, Hensher D. Stated choice methods: analysis and application. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000CrossRef Louviere J, Swait J, Hensher D. Stated choice methods: analysis and application. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000CrossRef
9.
Zurück zum Zitat Ryan M, Gerard K. Discrete choice experiments. In: Fayers P, Hays R, editors. Assessing quality of life in clinical trials: methods and practice. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005:431–45 Ryan M, Gerard K. Discrete choice experiments. In: Fayers P, Hays R, editors. Assessing quality of life in clinical trials: methods and practice. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005:431–45
10.
Zurück zum Zitat Johnson FR, Ozdemir S, Mansfield C, et al. Crohn’s disease patients’ risk-benefit preferences: serious adverse event risks versus treatment efficacy. Gastroenterology 2007; 133: 769–79PubMedCrossRef Johnson FR, Ozdemir S, Mansfield C, et al. Crohn’s disease patients’ risk-benefit preferences: serious adverse event risks versus treatment efficacy. Gastroenterology 2007; 133: 769–79PubMedCrossRef
11.
Zurück zum Zitat Johnson FR, Banzhaf M, Desvousges W. Willingness to pay for improved respiratory and cardiovascular health: a multiple-format stated-preference approach. Health Econ 2000; 9: 295–317PubMedCrossRef Johnson FR, Banzhaf M, Desvousges W. Willingness to pay for improved respiratory and cardiovascular health: a multiple-format stated-preference approach. Health Econ 2000; 9: 295–317PubMedCrossRef
12.
Zurück zum Zitat Ryan M, McIntosh E, Shackley P. Methodological issues in the application of conjoint analysis in health care. Health Econ 1998; 7: 373–8PubMedCrossRef Ryan M, McIntosh E, Shackley P. Methodological issues in the application of conjoint analysis in health care. Health Econ 1998; 7: 373–8PubMedCrossRef
13.
Zurück zum Zitat Bryan S, Buxton M, Sheldon R, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging for the investigation of knee injuries: an investigation of preferences. Health Econ 1998; 7: 595–603PubMedCrossRef Bryan S, Buxton M, Sheldon R, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging for the investigation of knee injuries: an investigation of preferences. Health Econ 1998; 7: 595–603PubMedCrossRef
14.
Zurück zum Zitat Hauber AB, Mohamed AF, Watson ME, et al. Benefits, risks, and uncertainty: preferences of antiretroviral-na:?ve African Americans for HIV treatments. AIDS Patient Care STDs 2009; 23: 29–34PubMedCrossRef Hauber AB, Mohamed AF, Watson ME, et al. Benefits, risks, and uncertainty: preferences of antiretroviral-na:?ve African Americans for HIV treatments. AIDS Patient Care STDs 2009; 23: 29–34PubMedCrossRef
15.
Zurück zum Zitat Bridges JFP, Kinter ET, Kidane L, et al. Things are looking up since we started listening to patients: trends in the application of conjoint analysis in health 1982–2007. Patient 2008; 1(4): 273–82PubMedCrossRef Bridges JFP, Kinter ET, Kidane L, et al. Things are looking up since we started listening to patients: trends in the application of conjoint analysis in health 1982–2007. Patient 2008; 1(4): 273–82PubMedCrossRef
16.
Zurück zum Zitat Hauber AB, Mohamed AF, Johnson FR, et al. Quantifying asthma patient preferences for onset of effect of combination inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting beta2-agonist maintenance medications. Allergy Asthma Proc 2009; 30(2): 139–47PubMedCrossRef Hauber AB, Mohamed AF, Johnson FR, et al. Quantifying asthma patient preferences for onset of effect of combination inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting beta2-agonist maintenance medications. Allergy Asthma Proc 2009; 30(2): 139–47PubMedCrossRef
17.
Zurück zum Zitat Johnson FR, Hauber AB, Osoba D, et al. Are chemotherapy patients’ HRQoL importance weights consistent with linear scoring rules? A stated-choice approach. Qual Life Res 2006; 15: 285–98PubMedCrossRef Johnson FR, Hauber AB, Osoba D, et al. Are chemotherapy patients’ HRQoL importance weights consistent with linear scoring rules? A stated-choice approach. Qual Life Res 2006; 15: 285–98PubMedCrossRef
18.
Zurück zum Zitat Osoba D, Hsu A, Copley-Merriman C, et al. Stated preferences of patients with cancer for health-related quality-of-life (HRQOL) domains during treatment. Qual Life Res 2006; 15: 273–83PubMedCrossRef Osoba D, Hsu A, Copley-Merriman C, et al. Stated preferences of patients with cancer for health-related quality-of-life (HRQOL) domains during treatment. Qual Life Res 2006; 15: 273–83PubMedCrossRef
19.
Zurück zum Zitat Hauber AB, Mohamed AF, Johnson FR, et al. Estimating importance weights for the IWQOL-Lite using conjoint analysis. Qual Life Res 2010; 19: 701–9PubMedCrossRef Hauber AB, Mohamed AF, Johnson FR, et al. Estimating importance weights for the IWQOL-Lite using conjoint analysis. Qual Life Res 2010; 19: 701–9PubMedCrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
Patient Preferences and Linear Scoring Rules for Patient-Reported Outcomes
verfasst von
Ms Ateesha F. Mohamed
A. Brett Hauber
F. Reed Johnson
Cheryl D. Coon
Publikationsdatum
01.12.2010
Verlag
Springer International Publishing
Erschienen in
The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research / Ausgabe 4/2010
Print ISSN: 1178-1653
Elektronische ISSN: 1178-1661
DOI
https://doi.org/10.2165/11537880-000000000-00000

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 4/2010

The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research 4/2010 Zur Ausgabe

Pioneer Profile

Deborah Marshall, PhD

Original Research Article

Analysis of Patients’ Preferences