Discrete-choice experiments versus rating scale exercises to evaluate the importance of attributes

被引:19
作者
Wijnen, Ben F. M. [1 ,2 ,3 ]
van der Putten, Inge M. [1 ,2 ]
Groothuis, Siebren [1 ,2 ]
de Kinderen, Reina J. A. [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Noben, Cindy Y. G. [1 ,2 ]
Paulus, Aggie T. G. [1 ,2 ]
Ramaekers, Bram L. T. [4 ]
Vogel, Gaston C. W. M. [1 ,4 ]
Hiligsmann, Mickael [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Maastricht Univ, Res Sch Publ Hlth & Primary Care, CAPHRI, NL-6200 MD Maastricht, Netherlands
[2] Maastricht Univ, Dept Hlth Serv Res, NL-6200 MD Maastricht, Netherlands
[3] Epilepsy Ctr Kempenhaeghe, Dept Res & Dev, NL-5590 AB Heeze, Netherlands
[4] Maastricht Univ, Med Ctr, Dept Clin Epidemiol & Med Technol Assessment, NL-6202 AZ Maastricht, Netherlands
关键词
discrete choice experiment; Likert scale; preferences; rating scale; relative importance of attributes; CONJOINT-ANALYSIS APPLICATIONS; HEALTH ECONOMICS; CARE; CHEMOTHERAPY; PREFERENCES;
D O I
10.1586/14737167.2015.1033406
中图分类号
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号
摘要
Aim: To examine the difference between discrete-choice experiments (DCE) and rating scale exercises (RSE) in determining the most important attributes using a case study. Methods: Undergraduate health sciences students were asked to complete a DCE and a RSE. Six potentially important attributes were identified in focus groups. Fourteen unlabelled choice tasks were constructed using a statistically efficient design. Mixed multinomial logistic regression analysis was used for DCE data analysis. Results: In total, 254 undergraduate students filled out the questionnaire. In the DCE, only four attributes were statistically significant, whereas in the RSE, all attributes except one were rated four or higher. Conclusion: Attribute importance differs between DCE and RSE. The DCE had a differentiating effect on the relative importance of the attributes; however, determining relative importance using DCE should be done with caution as a lack of statistically significant difference between levels does not necessarily imply that the attribute is not important.
引用
收藏
页码:721 / 728
页数:8
相关论文
共 22 条
[1]   DOES THE NUMBER OF CHOICE SETS MATTER? RESULTS FROM A WEB SURVEY APPLYING A DISCRETE CHOICE EXPERIMENT [J].
Bech, Mickael ;
Kjaer, Trine ;
Lauridsen, Jorgen .
HEALTH ECONOMICS, 2011, 20 (03) :273-286
[2]  
Bridges John F P, 2003, Appl Health Econ Health Policy, V2, P213
[3]   Consumer Preferences for Hearing Aid Attributes: A Comparison of Rating and Conjoint Analysis Methods [J].
Bridges, John F. P. ;
Lataille, Angela T. ;
Buttorff, Christine ;
White, Sharon ;
Niparko, John K. .
TRENDS IN AMPLIFICATION, 2012, 16 (01) :40-48
[4]   Conjoint Analysis Applications in Health-a Checklist: A Report of the ISPOR Good Research Practices for Conjoint Analysis Task Force [J].
Bridges, John F. P. ;
Hauber, A. Brett ;
Marshall, Deborah ;
Lloyd, Andrew ;
Prosser, Lisa A. ;
Regier, Dean A. ;
Johnson, F. Reed ;
Mauskopf, Josephine .
VALUE IN HEALTH, 2011, 14 (04) :403-413
[5]   Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: A Review of the Literature [J].
Clark, Michael D. ;
Determann, Domino ;
Petrou, Stavros ;
Moro, Domenico ;
de Bekker-Grob, Esther W. .
PHARMACOECONOMICS, 2014, 32 (09) :883-902
[6]   Labeled versus Unlabeled Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: An Application to Colorectal Cancer Screening [J].
de Bekker-Grob, Esther W. ;
Hol, Lieke ;
Donkers, Bas ;
van Dam, Leonie ;
Habbema, J. Dik F. ;
van Leerdam, Monique E. ;
Kuipers, Ernst J. ;
Essink-Bot, Marie-Louise ;
Steyerberg, Ewout W. .
VALUE IN HEALTH, 2010, 13 (02) :315-323
[7]   Best-worst scaling: What it can do for health care research and how to do it [J].
Flynn, Terry N. ;
Louviere, Jordan J. ;
Peters, Tim J. ;
Coast, Joanna .
JOURNAL OF HEALTH ECONOMICS, 2007, 26 (01) :171-189
[8]  
Hensher DA, 2005, APPL CHOICE ANAL PRI, V1st
[9]   Patients' preferences for osteoporosis drug treatment: a discrete-choice experiment [J].
Hiligsmann, Mickael ;
Dellaert, Benedict G. ;
Dirksen, Carmen D. ;
van der Weijden, Trudy ;
Goemaere, Stefan ;
Reginster, Jean-Yves ;
Watson, Verity ;
Boonen, Annelies .
ARTHRITIS RESEARCH & THERAPY, 2014, 16 (01)
[10]   Are chemotherapy patients' HRQoL importance weights consistent with linear scoring rules? A stated-choice approach [J].
Johnson, FR ;
Hauber, AB ;
Osoba, D ;
Hsu, MA ;
Coombs, J ;
Copley-Merriman, C .
QUALITY OF LIFE RESEARCH, 2006, 15 (02) :285-298