Free access

Review

17 January 2020

Experimental design issues in choice-based conjoint applied to patient choice in healthcare

Authors: Pallavi Chitturi [email protected] and Alexandra CaridesAuthor Info & Affiliations

Publication: Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research

Volume 9, Number 2

https://doi.org/10.2217/cer-2019-0115

PDF OtherFormats

Abstract

Choice-based conjoint (CBC) is used to understand how individuals develop preferences for decision alternatives. When decision alternatives can be described in terms of attributes, researchers want to determine the value respondents attach to various attribute levels. Popular in psychology, marketing, economics and other areas, CBC is now finding applications in healthcare to understand patient choice in healthcare policy, drug development, doctor–patient communications, etc. However, a lack of standard methodologies has served as a barrier to its use in healthcare. Therefore, there is a need to identify good research practices for CBC in healthcare. We review recent advances in CBC such as Pareto optimal choice sets, information per profile and reducing choice set sizes, as applied to patient choice.

Formats available

You can view the full content in the following formats:

View PDF View Full Text

References

Papers of special note have been highlighted as: • of interest; •• of considerable interest

1.

Cunningham CE, Deal K, Chen Y. Adaptive choice-based conjoint analysis: a new patient-centered approach to the assessment of health service preferences. Patient 3(4), 257–273 (2010).

2.

Najafzadeh M, Gagne JJ, Choudhry NK, Polinski JM, Avorn J, Schneeweiss SS. Patients' preferences in anticoagulant therapy: discrete choice experiment. Circ. Cardiovasc. Qual. Outcomes 7(6), 912–919 (2014).

3.

Groenewoud S, Van Exel NJA, Bobinac A, Berg M, Huijsman R, Stolk EA. What influences patients' decisions when choosing a health care provider? Measuring preferences of patients with knee arthrosis, chronic depression, or Alzheimer’s disease, using discrete choice experiments. Health Serv. Res. 50(6), 1941–1972 (2015).

4.

Luce RD, Tukey JW. Simultaneous conjoint measurement: a new type of fundamental measurement. J. Math. Psychol. 1(1), 1–27 (1964).

• Conjoint analysis was first introduced in this seminal paper under the term ‘conjoint measurement’.

5.

Louviere J, Woodworth G. Design and analysis of simulated consumer choice or allocation experiments: a method based on aggregate data. J. Marketing Res. 20, 350–367 (1983).

6.

Ding M, Grewal R, Liechty J. Incentive-aligned conjoint analysis. J. Marketing Res. 42(1), 67–82 (2005).

7.

Chitturi R, Chitturi P, Raghavarao D. Design for synergy with brand or price information. Psychol. Marketing 27(7), 679–697 (2010).

8.

Halme M, Kallio M. Likelihood estimation of consumer preferences in choice-based conjoint analysis. Eur. J. Operational Res. 239(2), 556–564 (2014).

9.

Aguilar F. Conjoint analysis of industry location preferences: evidence from the softwood lumber industry in the US. App. Econ. 43(24), 3265–3274 (2010).

10.

Brown DS, Finkelstein E, Brown DR, Buchner D, Johnson FR. Estimating older adults’ preferences for walking programs via conjoint analysis. Am. J. Prev. Med. 36(3), 201–207 (2009).

11.

Makkar S, Williamson A, Turner T, Redman S, Louviere J. Using conjoint analysis to develop a system to score research engagement actions by health decision makers. Health Res. Policy Syst. 13, 22 (2015).

12.

Green PE, Srinivasan V. Conjoint analysis in marketing: new developments with implications for research and practice. J. Marketing 54(4), 3–19 (1990).

13.

Zhang D. Pareto optimal design in behavioral experiments [dissertation]. Temple University, PA, USA (2001).

14.

Chen J, Chitturi P. Choice experiments for estimating main effects and interactions. J. Stat. Planning Inference 142(2), 390–396 (2012).

•• Proposes a new approach to reducing choice set sizes in discrete choice experiments under the assumption that certain higher order interactions are negligible.

15.

Kinter ET. A comparison of two experimental design approaches in applying conjoint analysis in patient-centered outcomes research: a randomized trial. Patient 5(4), 279–294 (2012).

16.

De Bekker-Grob EW, Donkers B, Jonker MF, Stolk EA. Sample size requirements for discrete-choice experiments in healthcare: a practical guide. Patient 8(5), 373–384 (2015).

17.

Bridges JFP, 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 14(4), 403–413 (2011).

• Highlights the important stages of the development and publication of conjoint analysis or discrete-choice experiment applications in healthcare.

18.

Harrison M, Rigby D, Vass C, Flynn T, Louviere J, Payne K. Risk as an attribute in discrete choice experiments: a systematic review of the literature. Patient 7(2), 151–170 (2014).

19.

Raghavarao D, Wiley JB. Estimating main effects with Pareto optimal subsets. Aust. NZ. J. Statistics 40(4), 425–432 (1998).

•• Discusses the construction of Pareto optimal choice set with no dominating or dominated profiles.

20.

Raghavaro D, Wiley JB, Chitturi P. Choice-Based Conjoint Analysis: Models and Designs. Chapman and Hall/CRC Press, FL, USA (2010).

21.

Xiao J, Chitturi P. Some results on Pareto optimal choice sets for estimating main effects and interactions in 2ⁿ and 3ⁿ factorial plans. Sankhya B 80(1), 37–59 (2018).

•• Examines the information per profile of choice sets and showed that the information per profile can be maximized under certain conditions.

22.

Raghavarao D, Wiley JB. Design strategies for sequential choice experiments involving economic alternatives. J. Stat. Planning Inference 136(9), 3287–3306 (2006).

23.

Raghavarao D, Zhang D. 2n behavioral experiments using Pareto optimal choice sets. Statistica Sinica 12(4), 1085–1092 (2002).

|