Search

Introduction: Despite the recognised importance of participant understanding for valid and reliable discrete choice experiment (DCE) results, there has been limited assessment of whether, and how, people understand DCEs, and how 'understanding' is conceptualised in DCEs applied to a health context., Objectives: Our aim was to identify how participant understanding is conceptualised in the DCE literature in a health context. Our research questions addressed how participant understanding is defined, measured, and used., Methods: Searches were conducted (June 2019) in the MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsychINFO and Econlit databases, as well as hand searching. Search terms were based on previous DCE systematic reviews, with additional understanding keywords used in a proximity-based search strategy. Eligible studies were peer-reviewed journal articles in the field of health, related to DCE or best-worst scaling type 3 (BWS3) studies, and reporting some consideration or assessment of participant understanding. A descriptive analytical approach was used to chart relevant data from each study, including publication year, country, clinical area, subject group, sample size, study design, numbers of attributes, levels and choice sets, definition of understanding, how understanding was tested, results of the understanding tests, and how the information about understanding was used. Each study was categorised based on how understanding was conceptualised and used within the study., Results: Of 306 potentially eligible articles identified, 31 were excluded based on titles and abstracts, and 200 were excluded on full-text review, resulting in 75 included studies. Three categories of study were identified: applied DCEs (n = 52), pretesting studies (n = 7) and studies of understanding (n = 16). Typically, understanding was defined in relation to either the choice context, such as attribute terminology, or the concept of choosing. Very few studies considered respondents' engagement as a component of understanding. Understanding was measured primarily through qualitative pretesting, rationality or validity tests included in the survey, and participant self-report, however reporting and use of the results of these methods was inconsistent., Conclusions: Those conducting or using health DCEs should carefully select, justify, and report the measurement and potential impact of participant understanding in their specific choice context. There remains scope for research into the different components of participant understanding, particularly related to engagement, the impact of participant understanding on DCE validity and reliability, the best measures of understanding, and methods to maximise participant understanding.

Purpose: The COMPARE (COMparing treatment options for ProstAte cancer) study aimed to evaluate and quantify the trade-offs patients make between different aspects of active surveillance and definitive therapy., Materials and Methods: A discrete choice experiment tool was used to elicit patient preferences for different treatment characteristics in 34 urology departments. Patients with localized prostate cancer completed the discrete choice experiment within 1 week of being diagnosed and before they made treatment decisions. The discrete choice experiment was pretested (5) and piloted (106) with patients. Patients chose their preferred treatment profile based on the 6 characteristics of treatment type (active surveillance, focal therapy, radical therapy), return to normal activities, erectile function, urinary function, not needing more cancer treatment and 10 to 15-year cancer specific survival. Different tools were designed for patients with low-intermediate (468) and high risk (166) disease. An error components conditional logit model was used to estimate preferences and trade-offs between treatment characteristics., Results: Patients with low-intermediate risk disease were willing to trade 6.99% absolute decrease in survival to have active surveillance over definitive therapy. They were willing to trade 0.75%, 0.46% and 0.19% absolute decrease in survival for a 1-month reduction in time to return to normal activities and 1% absolute improvements in urinary and sexual function, respectively. Patients with high risk disease were willing to trade 3.10%, 1.04% and 0.41% absolute decrease in survival for a 1-month reduction in time to return to normal activities and 1% absolute improvements in urinary and sexual function, respectively., Conclusions: Patients with low-intermediate risk prostate cancer preferred active surveillance to definitive therapy. Patients of all risk levels were willing to trade cancer specific survival for improved quality of life.

Objectives: Debriefing questions can assess if respondents understand discrete choice experiments (DCEs) and are answering in a way consistent with theories of decision making and utility maximization. Nevertheless, there is limited literature about how often debriefing questions are included or how the results are used in health economics. The aim of this study was to conduct a survey of the frequency, type, and analysis of debriefing questions in health DCEs., Methods: We conducted an online survey of authors of published health DCEs, asking about their use of debriefing questions, including frequency, type, and analysis. We descriptively analyzed the sample characteristics and responses. Free-text questions were analyzed with qualitative thematic analysis., Results: We received 70 responses (43% response rate), of which 50% reported using debriefing questions. They were most commonly designed to assess difficulty (91%), understanding (49%), and attribute nonattendance (31%) rather than learning effects (3%) or monotonicity (11%). On average, 37% of debriefing questions were analyzed (range, 0% to 69%), and the results were used <50% of the time, usually to exclude respondents or interpret overall results. Researcher experience or confidence with DCEs did not affect their use of debriefing questions., Conclusions: These results suggest that although half of researchers conducting health DCEs use debriefing questions, many do not analyze, use, or report the responses. Given the additional respondent burden, there is a need for reliable and valid debriefing questions. In the meantime, the inclusion, analysis, and reporting of debriefing questions should be carefully considered before DCE implementation., (Copyright © 2019 ISPOR–The Professional Society for Health Economics and Outcomes Research. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) are widely used to quantify individuals' preferences for healthcare. Guidelines recommend the design of DCEs should be informed by qualitative research. However, only a few studies go beyond guidelines by fully presenting qualitative and quantitative research jointly together in a mixed methods approach (MMA)., Objectives: Using an example study about men's preferences for medical treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS), we demonstrate how qualitative research can complement DCEs to gain a rich understanding of individuals' preferences., Methods: We were the first to combine online discussion groups (ODGs) with an online DCE. A thematic analysis of the ODGs and a conceptual map provided insights into men's quality of life (QoL) with LUTS and relevant treatment attitudes. This was used to design the DCE. Men's willingness to pay (WTP) for these attributes was estimated. Findings from ODGs and DCE were compared to understand WTP and preference heterogeneity., Key Findings: Men mostly valued medicine that reduced urgency and night-time frequencies of urination but avoided sexual side effects. We find heterogeneity in the effect of sexual side effects on men's preferences. The ODGs suggest this is because several men may be sexually inactive due to their age, being widowed or having comorbidities. The ODGs also raised concern about men's awareness of LUTS., Conclusion: We argue that the insights gained into men's preferences for treatment and how LUTS affects men's QoL could not have been obtained by either the qualitative research or the DCE alone.

This paper investigates if respondents' choice to not consider all characteristics of a multiattribute health service may represent preferences. Over the last decade, an increasing number of studies account for attribute non-attendance (ANA) when using discrete choice experiments to elicit individuals' preferences. Most studies assume such behaviour is a heuristic and therefore uninformative. This assumption may result in misleading welfare estimates if ANA reflects preferences. This is the first paper to assess if ANA is a heuristic or genuine preference without relying on respondents' self-stated motivation and the first study to explore this question within a health context. Based on findings from cognitive psychology, we expect that familiar respondents are less likely to use a decision heuristic to simplify choices than unfamiliar respondents. We employ a latent class model of discrete choice experiment data concerned with National Health Service managers' preferences for support services that assist with performance concerns. We present quantitative and qualitative evidence that in our study ANA mostly represents preferences. We also show that wrong assumptions about ANA result in inadequate welfare measures that can result in suboptimal policy advice. Future research should proceed with caution when assuming that ANA is a heuristic., (Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

The 2003 Health Economics paper by Dolan, Olsen, Menzel and Richardson on 'An inquiry into the different perspectives that can be used when eliciting preferences in health' presents a conceptual framework of six perspectives along two dimensions: preferences (personal, social, and socially inclusive personal) and context (ex ante and ex post). The objective of our paper is to re-think this framework. We ask four questions concerning: the patient, or the user of the treatment; the payer of the treatment; the assessor of the value of treatment; and the timing of the illness and the nature of its risk. These questions refine the preference and context dimensions, and lead to the identification of perspectives not classified by the original framework. We propose an extended framework with five preferences (personal, non-use, proxy, social, and socially inclusive personal) and five contexts (one of which is ex post and four ex ante): since two of these cells are empty, this results in 23 possible perspectives. Online Supplementary Information presents 11 of these more formally to clearly distinguish between them and uses monetary and non-monetary (time trade-off) valuation tasks as examples. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., (Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Objectives: To estimate the preferences of osteoporotic patients for medication attributes, and analyse data from seven European countries., Methods: A discrete choice experiment was conducted in Belgium, France, Ireland, the Netherlands, Spain, Switzerland and the UK. Patients were asked to choose repeatedly between two hypothetical unlabelled drug treatments (and an opt-out option) that varied with respect to four attributes: efficacy in reducing the risk of fracture, type of potential common side effects, and mode and frequency of administration. In those countries in which patients contribute to the cost of their treatment directly, a fifth attribute was added: out-of-pocket cost. A mixed logit panel model was used to estimate patients' preferences., Results: In total, 1124 patients completed the experiment, with a sample of between 98 and 257 patients per country. In all countries, patients preferred treatment with higher effectiveness, and 6-monthly subcutaneous injection was always preferred over weekly oral tablets. In five countries, patients also preferred a monthly oral tablet and yearly i.v. injections over weekly oral tablets. In the three countries where the out-of-pocket cost was included as an attribute, lower costs significantly contributed to the treatment preference. Between countries, there were statistically significant differences for 13 out of 42 attribute/level interactions., Conclusion: We found statistically significant differences in patients' preferences for anti-osteoporosis medications between countries, especially for the mode of administration. Our findings emphasized that international treatment recommendations should allow for local adaptation, and that understanding individual preferences is important if we want to improve the quality of clinical care for patients with osteoporosis., (© The Author 2017. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Society for Rheumatology. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com)

Objective: To evaluate to what extent rheumatologists consider economic aspects and patients' preferences when choosing drug treatments in patients with active RA., Methods: In a discrete choice experiment, rheumatologists were asked to choose between two unlabelled drug treatment options for a hypothetical RA patient with moderate disease activity who failed two synthetic DMARDs. Attributes and levels of drug treatments were selected based on existing literature, rheumatologists' opinion and expert consensus. This resulted in five attributes each described by three levels: efficacy (level of improvement and achieved state on DAS28), safety (probability of a serious adverse event), patients' preference (level of agreement), annual medication costs and cost-effectiveness (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio). An efficient experimental design generated 14 treatment choices and a random parameter logit model estimated the relative importance of attributes., Results: Sixty-three rheumatologists from the Netherlands contributed to the analysis; 44% were female and mean (sd) age was 49 (8) years. Drug efficacy had the strongest relative contribution to the drug choice (44%) followed by medication costs (24%), patients' preference (17%) and cost-effectiveness (14%). Patients' preferences were most relevant when patients disliked a proposed treatment. The risk of serious but uncommon or rare side effects only played a minor role in the treatment choice (1%)., Conclusion: In addition to drug efficacy, rheumatologists account for economic aspects and for patients' preferences when deciding on drugs. Decisions are more influenced by absolute costs than relative cost-effectiveness and by patients' disliking as opposed to favouring the treatment., (© The Author 2016. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Society for Rheumatology. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Objective: To compare the value that rheumatologists across Europe attach to patients' preferences and economic aspects when choosing treatments for patients with rheumatoid arthritis., Methods: In a discrete choice experiment, European rheumatologists chose between two hypothetical drug treatments for a patient with moderate disease activity. Treatments differed in five attributes: efficacy (improvement and achieved state on disease activity), safety (probability of serious adverse events), patient's preference (level of agreement), medication costs and cost-effectiveness (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER)). A Bayesian efficient design defined 14 choice sets, and a random parameter logit model was used to estimate relative preferences for rheumatologists across countries. Cluster analyses and latent class models were applied to understand preference patterns across countries and among individual rheumatologists., Results: Responses of 559 rheumatologists from 12 European countries were included in the analysis (49% females, mean age 48 years). In all countries, efficacy dominated treatment decisions followed by economic considerations and patients' preferences. Across countries, rheumatologists avoided selecting a treatment that patients disliked. Latent class models revealed four respondent profiles: one traded off all attributes except safety, and the remaining three classes disregarded ICER. Among individual rheumatologists, 57% disregarded ICER and these were more likely from Italy, Romania, Portugal or France, whereas 43% disregarded uncommon/rare side effects and were more likely from Belgium, Germany, Hungary, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden or UK., Conclusions: Overall, European rheumatologists are willing to trade between treatment efficacy, patients' treatment preferences and economic considerations. However, the degree of trade-off differs between countries and among individuals., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.)

Background: Demand for health services continues to rise. Greater use of community pharmacy services instead of medical services for minor ailments could help relieve pressure on healthcare providers in high-cost settings. Community pharmacies are recognised sources of treatment and advice for people wishing to manage these ailments. However, increasing the public's use of pharmacy services may depend on attributes of pharmacies and their staff. This study aimed to determine the general public's relative preferences for community pharmacy attributes using a discrete choice experiment (DCE)., Method: A UK-wide DCE survey of the general public was conducted using face-to-face computer-assisted personal interviews. Attributes and levels for the DCE were informed by a literature review and a cohort study of community pharmacy customers. The context for the experiment was a minor ailment scenario describing flu-like symptoms. The DCE choice sets described two hypothetical community pharmacy services; respondents were asked to choose which (if either) of the two pharmacies they would prefer to help them manage symptoms. Data from 1,049 interviews were analysed using an error components logit model. Willingness to pay (WTP), a monetary measure of benefit, was estimated for the different attribute levels., Results: When seeking help or treatment for flu-like symptoms, respondents most valued a pharmacy service that would improve their understanding and management of symptoms (WTP = £6.28), provided by staff who are trained (WTP (pharmacist) = £2.63: WTP(trained assistant) = £3.22), friendly and approachable (WTP = £3.38). Waiting time, pharmacy location and availability of parking also contributed to respondents' preferences. WTP for a service comprising the best possible combination of attributes and levels was calculated as £55.43., Conclusion: Attributes of a community pharmacy and its staff may influence people's decisions about which pharmacy they would visit to access treatment and advice for minor ailments. In line with the public's preferences, offering community pharmacy services that help people to better understand and manage symptoms, are provided promptly by trained staff who are friendly and approachable, and in a local setting with easy access to parking, has the potential to increase uptake amongst those seeking help to manage minor ailments. In this way it may be possible to shift demand away from high-cost health services and make more efficient use of scarce public resources.

Introduction: The patient's perspective is becoming increasingly important in clinical and policy decisions. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the preferences of patients with, or at risk of, osteoporosis for medication attributes, and to establish how patients trade between these attributes., Methods: A discrete choice experiment survey was designed and patients were asked to choose between two hypothetical unlabelled drug treatments (and an opt-out option) that vary in five attributes: efficacy in reducing the risk of fracture, type of potential common side-effects, mode and frequency of administration and out-of-pocket costs. An efficient experimental design was used to construct the treatment option choice sets and a mixed logit panel data model was used to estimate patients' preferences and trade-offs between attributes., Results: A total of 257 patients with, or at risk of, osteoporosis completed the experiment. As expected, patients preferred treatment with higher effectiveness and lower cost. They also preferred either an oral monthly tablet or 6-month subcutaneous injection above weekly oral tablets, 3-month subcutaneous, 3-month intravenous or yearly intravenous injections. Patients disliked being at risk of gastro-intestinal disorders more than being at risk of skin reactions and flu-like symptoms. There was significant variation in preferences across the sample for all attributes except subcutaneous injection., Conclusions: This study revealed that osteoporotic patients preferred 6-month subcutaneous injection and oral monthly tablet, and disliked gastro-intestinal disorders. Moreover, patients were willing to pay a personal contribution or to trade treatment efficacy for better levels of other attributes. Preferences for treatment attributes varied across patients and this highlights the importance of clinical decision-making taking individual preferences into account to improve osteoporosis care.

Background: Genital herpes (GH) is widespread, and detrimental to patients' quality of life. It is not always adequately treated, however, with potential consequences for patients' well-being and healthcare costs. Involving patients in treatment decisions can increase their satisfaction and adherence. We investigated patients' preferences for different GH treatments., Methods: A discrete choice experiment was administered to 154 subjects with GH. Subjects chose between different treatment options: episodic, suppressive, or no treatment, described according to: chance of GH recurrence; chance of transmitting the GH virus to a partner; chance of becoming infected with HIV; number of tablets to be taken every day and during an outbreak; and out-of-pocket cost. Subjects' willingness to pay and probability of treatment uptake were estimated., Results: Subjects preferred antiviral treatment to no treatment, and subjects receiving suppressive treatment preferred this treatment to no treatment. Effect of treatment on GH recurrence and HIV infection rates was a significant influence on subject's choice, as were the number of tablets taken daily and during an outbreak and out-of pocket treatment cost. Subjects were willing to pay between $15.50 and $73.41 for treatment. Subjects' willingness to pay depends on the type of treatment and their current treatment., Conclusions: Subjects' preferences are influenced by both the treatment they follow and attributes of treatment including cost. Knowledge of patients' preferences, together with their clinical status, could help decision-makers to optimize therapy uptake and success.

In this study, the authors demonstrate how mixed logit analysis of discrete choice experiment (DCE) data can provide information about unobserved preference heterogeneity. Their application investigates unobserved heterogeneity in men's preferences for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) treatment. They use a DCE to elicit preferences for seven characteristics of BPH treatment: time to symptom improvement, sexual and nonsexual treatment side effects, risks of acute urinary retention and surgery, cost of treatment, and reduction in prostate size. They investigate the importance of these characteristics and the trade-offs men are willing to make between them. Preferences are elicited from a sample of 100 men attending an outpatient clinic in Ireland. The authors find all treatment characteristics are significant determinants of treatment choice. There is significant preference heterogeneity in the population for four treatment characteristics: time to symptom improvement, treatment reducing prostate size, risk of surgery, and sexual side effects. The importance of preference heterogeneity at the policy level within the context of shared decision making is discussed.

Objective: To examine women's preferences for characteristics of chlamydia screening. Chlamydia trachomatis is the most common curable sexually transmitted disease. To design effective screening programs, it is important to fully capture the benefits of screening to patients. Thus, the value of experience factors must be considered alongside health outcomes., Methods: A self-complete discrete choice experiment questionnaire was administered to women attending a family planning clinic. Chlamydia screening was described by five characteristics: location of screening; type of screening test; cost of screening test; risk of developing pelvic inflammatory disease if chlamydia is untreated; and support provided when receiving results., Results: One hundred twenty-six women completed the questionnaire. Respondents valued characteristics of the care experience. Screening was valued at 15 pound; less invasive screening tests increase willingness to pay by 7 pound, and more invasive tests reduce willingness to pay by 3.50 pound. The most preferred screening location was the family planning clinic, valued at 5 pound. The support of a trained health-care professional when receiving results was valued at 4 pound. Respondents under 25 years and those in a casual relationship were less likely to be screened., Conclusions: Women valued experience factors in the provision of chlamydia screening. To correctly value these screening programs and to predict uptake, cost-effectiveness studies should take such values into account. Failure to do this may result in incorrect policy recommendations.