Estimating preferences for medical devices:does the number of profile in choice experiments matter?

Background: Most applications of choice-based conjoint analysis in health use choice tasks with two profiles, while marketing studies routinely use three or more. This study reports on a randomized trial comparing paired with triplet profile choice formats focused on hearing aids. Methods: Respondents with hearing loss were drawn from a nationally representative cohort, completed identical surveys, and were randomized to choice tasks with two or three profiles. The primary outcomes of differences in estimated preferences were explored using t-tests, likelihood ratio tests, and analyses of individual-level models estimated with ordinary least squares. Results: 500 respondents were recruited. 127 had no hearing loss, 28 had profound loss and 22 declined to participate and were not analyzed. Of the remaining 323 participants, 146 individuals were randomized to the pairs and 177 to triplets. Pairs and triplets produced identical rankings of attribute importance but homogeneity was rejected (P<0.0001). Pairs led to more variation, and were systematically biased toward the null because a third (32.2%) of respondents focused on only one attribute. This is in contrast to respondents in the triplet design who traded across all attributes. Discussion: The number of profiles in choice tasks affects the results of conjoint analysis studies. Here triplets are preferred to pairs as they avoid non-trading and allow for more accurate estimation of preferences models

Does technique matter; a pilot study exploring weighting techniques for a multi-criteria decision support framework

Background There is an increased interest in the use of multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) to support regulatory and reimbursement decision making. The EVIDEM framework was developed to provide pragmatic multi-criteria decision support in health care, to estimate the value of healthcare interventions, and to aid in priority-setting. The objectives of this study were to test 1) the influence of different weighting techniques on the overall outcome of an MCDA exercise, 2) the discriminative power in weighting different criteria of such techniques, and 3) whether different techniques result in similar weights in weighting the criteria set proposed by the EVIDEM framework. Methods A sample of 60 Dutch and Canadian students participated in the study. Each student used an online survey to provide weights for 14 criteria with two different techniques: a five-point rating scale and one of the following techniques selected randomly: ranking, point allocation, pairwise comparison and best worst scaling. Results The results of this study indicate that there is no effect of differences in weights on value estimates at the group level. On an individual level, considerable differences in criteria weights and rank order occur as a result of the weight elicitation method used, and the ability of different techniques to discriminate in criteria importance. Of the five techniques tested, the pair-wise comparison of criteria has the highest ability to discriminate in weights when fourteen criteria are compared. Conclusions When weights are intended to support group decisions, the choice of elicitation technique has negligible impact on criteria weights and the overall value of an innovation. However, when weights are used to support individual decisions, the choice of elicitation technique influences outcome and studies that use dissimilar techniques cannot be easily compared. Weight elicitation through pairwise comparison of criteria is preferred when taking into account its superior ability to discriminate between criteria and respondents’ preference

Public stated preferences and predicted uptake for genome-based colorectal cancer screening

Background Emerging developments in nanomedicine allow the development of genome-based technologies for non-invasive and individualised screening for diseases such as colorectal cancer. The main objective of this study was to measure user preferences for colorectal cancer screening using a nanopill. Methods A discrete choice experiment was used to estimate the preferences for five competing diagnostic techniques including the nanopill and iFOBT. Alternative screening scenarios were described using five attributes namely: preparation involved, sensitivity, specificity, complication rate and testing frequency. Fourteen random and two fixed choice tasks, each consisting of three alternatives, were offered to 2225 individuals. Data were analysed using the McFadden conditional logit model. Results Thirteen hundred and fifty-six respondents completed the questionnaire. The most important attributes (and preferred levels) were the screening technique (nanopill), sensitivity (100%) and preparation (no preparation). Stated screening uptake for the nanopill was 79%, compared to 76% for iFOBT. In the case of screening with the nanopill, the percentage of people preferring not to be screened would be reduced from 19.2% (iFOBT) to 16.7%. Conclusions Although the expected benefits of nanotechnology based colorectal cancer screening are improved screening uptake, assuming more accurate test results and less preparation involved, the relative preference of the nanopill is only slightly higher than the iFOBT. Estimating user preferences during the development of diagnostic technologies could be used to identify relative performance, including perceived benefits and harms compared to competitors allowing for significant changes to be made throughout the process of developmen

Does Inclusion of Interactions Result in Higher Precision of Estimated Health State Values?

Background: Most preference-based instruments producing overall values for health states are devised on the simplifying assumption that the overall effect of distinct health-related quality of life domains (attributes) of the instrument equals the sum of the attributes. Nevertheless, health attributes are often inter-related and depend on each other. Objectives: To investigate whether inclusion of second-order interactions in the three-level EuroQol five-dimensional questionnaire (EQ-5D-3L) value function would result in better fit and lead to different health state values than a model with main effects only. Methods: Using an efficient design, 400 pairs of EQ-5D-3L health states were generated in a pairwise choice format. We analyzed responses of 4000 people from the general population using a conditional logit model, and we tested goodness of fit using pseudo R2, Akaike information criterion, differences in log-likelihood, and likelihood ratio. We compared accuracies of models’ predictions based on root mean square error and mean absolute error. Results: The interaction-effects model showed systematically lower values than the main-effects model. Inclusion of interactions resulted only in a slightly better model fit. Interactions comprising mobility and self-care were the most salient. Conclusions: For the EQ-5D-3L, a value function based on interactions produces systematically lower values than a main-effects model, meaning that the effect of two or more health problems combined is stronger than the sum of the individual main effects

Applying the AHP in Health Economic Evaluations of New Technology.

Much research in health care is devoted to health economical modelling. Even though the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) is increasingly being applied in health care, its value to health economical modelling is still unrecognized. We explored the value of using AHP-derived results in a health economic model. We applied the AHP to provide input for a health economic evaluation of a new technology to diagnose breast cancer. No clinical data were available about the sensitivity and specificity of this technology. By means of the AHP, an expert panel estimated the sensitivity and specificity to be used in this model. Moreover, additional criteria including patient comfort and risks could be added to the health economic model. On the basis of the methodology suggested, the AHP proved to be feasible to support a comprehensive health economical evaluation of new technology, where clinical evidence is not yet available, or incomplet

A Review and Classification of Approaches for Dealing with Uncertainty in Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis for Healthcare Decisions

The Author(s) 2015. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com Abstract Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) is increasingly used to support decisions in healthcare involving multiple and conflicting criteria. Although uncertainty is usually carefully addressed in health eco-nomic evaluations, whether and how the different sources of uncertainty are dealt with and with what methods in MCDA is less known. The objective of this study is to review how uncertainty can be explicitly taken into account in MCDA and to discuss which approach may be appro-priate for healthcare decision makers. A literature review was conducted in the Scopus and PubMed databases. Two reviewers independently categorized studies according to research areas, the type of MCDA used, and the approach used to quantify uncertainty. Selected full text articles wer