IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v44y2024i2p203-216.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparing Discrete Choice Experiment with Swing Weighting to Estimate Attribute Relative Importance: A Case Study in Lung Cancer Patient Preferences

Author

Listed:
  • J. Veldwijk

    (Erasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
    Erasmus Choice Modelling Centre, Erasmus University, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
    Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Julius Centrum, Utrecht, the Netherlands)

  • I. P. Smith

    (Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Julius Centrum, Utrecht, the Netherlands)

  • S. Oliveri

    (Applied Research Division for Cognitive and Psychological Science, IEO, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy)

  • S. Petrocchi

    (Applied Research Division for Cognitive and Psychological Science, IEO, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy)

  • M. Y. Smith

    (Alexion AstraZeneca Rare Disease, Boston, MA, USA
    Department of Regulatory and Quality Sciences, School of Pharmacy, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA)

  • L. Lanzoni

    (Applied Research Division for Cognitive and Psychological Science, IEO, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy)

  • R. Janssens

    (Department of Pharmaceutical and Pharmacological Sciences, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium)

  • I. Huys

    (Department of Pharmaceutical and Pharmacological Sciences, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium)

  • G. A. de Wit

    (Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Julius Centrum, Utrecht, the Netherlands
    Department of Health Sciences, Faculty of Science, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam & Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands)

  • C. G. M Groothuis-Oudshoorn

    (Health Technology and Services Research (HTSR), Faculty of Behavioural Management and Social Sciences, University of Twente, Enschede, the Netherlands)

Abstract

Introduction Discrete choice experiments (DCE) are commonly used to elicit patient preferences and to determine the relative importance of attributes but can be complex and costly to administer. Simpler methods that measure relative importance exist, such as swing weighting with direct rating (SW-DR), but there is little empirical evidence comparing the two. This study aimed to directly compare attribute relative importance rankings and weights elicited using a DCE and SW-DR. Methods A total of 307 patients with non–small-cell lung cancer in Italy and Belgium completed an online survey assessing preferences for cancer treatment using DCE and SW-DR. The relative importance of the attributes was determined using a random parameter logit model for the DCE and rank order centroid method (ROC) for SW-DR. Differences in relative importance ranking and weights between the methods were assessed using Cohen’s weighted kappa and Dirichlet regression. Feedback on ease of understanding and answering the 2 tasks was also collected. Results Most respondents (>65%) found both tasks (very) easy to understand and answer. The same attribute, survival, was ranked most important irrespective of the methods applied. The overall ranking of the attributes on an aggregate level differed significantly between DCE and SW-ROC ( P  

Suggested Citation

  • J. Veldwijk & I. P. Smith & S. Oliveri & S. Petrocchi & M. Y. Smith & L. Lanzoni & R. Janssens & I. Huys & G. A. de Wit & C. G. M Groothuis-Oudshoorn, 2024. "Comparing Discrete Choice Experiment with Swing Weighting to Estimate Attribute Relative Importance: A Case Study in Lung Cancer Patient Preferences," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 44(2), pages 203-216, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:44:y:2024:i:2:p:203-216
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X231222421
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X231222421
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X231222421?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:44:y:2024:i:2:p:203-216. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.