IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/patien/v9y2016i5d10.1007_s40271-016-0170-3.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Framework for Instrument Development of a Choice Experiment: An Application to Type 2 Diabetes

Author

Listed:
  • Ellen M. Janssen

    (Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health
    Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health)

  • Jodi B. Segal

    (Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health
    Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health
    Johns Hopkins School of Medicine)

  • John F. P. Bridges

    (Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health
    Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health
    Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health)

Abstract

Objective Choice experiments are increasingly used to obtain patient preference information for regulatory benefit–risk assessments. Despite the importance of instrument design, there remains a paucity of literature applying good research principles. We applied a novel framework for instrument development of a choice experiment to measure type 2 diabetes mellitus treatment preferences. Methods Applying the framework, we used evidence synthesis, expert consultation, stakeholder engagement, pretest interviews, and pilot testing to develop a best–worst scaling (BWS) and discrete choice experiment (DCE). We synthesized attributes from published DCEs for type 2 diabetes, consulted clinical experts, engaged a national advisory board, conducted local cognitive interviews, and pilot tested a national survey. Results From published DCEs (n = 17), ten attribute categories were extracted with cost (n = 11) having the highest relative attribute importance (RAI) (range 6–10). Clinical consultation and stakeholder engagement identified six attributes for inclusion. Cognitive pretesting with local diabetes patients (n = 25) ensured comprehension of the choice experiment. Pilot testing with patients from a national sample (n = 50) identified nausea as most important (RAI for DCE: 10 [95 % CI 8.5–11.5]; RAI for BWS: 10 [95 % CI 8.9–11.1]). The developed choice experiment contained five attributes (A1c decrease, blood glucose stability, low blood glucose, nausea, additional medicine, and cost). Conclusion The framework for instrument development of a choice experiment included five stages of development and incorporated multiple stakeholder perspectives. Further comparisons of instrument development approaches are needed to identify best practices. To facilitate comparisons, researchers need to be encouraged to publish or discuss their instrument development strategies and findings.

Suggested Citation

  • Ellen M. Janssen & Jodi B. Segal & John F. P. Bridges, 2016. "A Framework for Instrument Development of a Choice Experiment: An Application to Type 2 Diabetes," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 9(5), pages 465-479, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:patien:v:9:y:2016:i:5:d:10.1007_s40271-016-0170-3
    DOI: 10.1007/s40271-016-0170-3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40271-016-0170-3
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40271-016-0170-3?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Joanna Coast & Hareth Al‐Janabi & Eileen J. Sutton & Susan A. Horrocks & A. Jane Vosper & Dawn R. Swancutt & Terry N. Flynn, 2012. "Using qualitative methods for attribute development for discrete choice experiments: issues and recommendations," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(6), pages 730-741, June.
    2. Susan Joy & Emily Little & Nisa Maruthur & Tanjala Purnell & John Bridges, 2013. "Patient Preferences for the Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes: A Scoping Review," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 31(10), pages 877-892, October.
    3. Michael Clark & Domino Determann & Stavros Petrou & Domenico Moro & Esther Bekker-Grob, 2014. "Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: A Review of the Literature," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 32(9), pages 883-902, September.
    4. Lill-Brith Arx & Trine Kjær, 2014. "The Patient Perspective of Diabetes Care: A Systematic Review of Stated Preference Research," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 7(3), pages 283-300, September.
    5. Aisha Harun & Carol Li & John F. P. Bridges & Yuri Agrawal, 2016. "Understanding the Experience of Age-Related Vestibular Loss in Older Individuals: A Qualitative Study," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 9(4), pages 303-309, August.
    6. S. Wortley & G. Wong & A. Kieu & K. Howard, 2014. "Assessing Stated Preferences for Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Critical Systematic Review of Discrete Choice Experiments," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 7(3), pages 271-282, September.
    7. Jennifer Whitty & Emily Lancsar & Kylie Rixon & Xanthe Golenko & Julie Ratcliffe, 2014. "A Systematic Review of Stated Preference Studies Reporting Public Preferences for Healthcare Priority Setting," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 7(4), pages 365-386, December.
    8. Eve Wittenberg & Monica Bharel & Adrianna Saada & Emely Santiago & John Bridges & Linda Weinreb, 2015. "Measuring the Preferences of Homeless Women for Cervical Cancer Screening Interventions: Development of a Best–Worst Scaling Survey," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 8(5), pages 455-467, October.
    9. A. Brett Hauber & Angelyn Fairchild & F. Reed Johnson, 2013. "Quantifying Benefit–Risk Preferences for Medical Interventions: An Overview of a Growing Empirical Literature," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 11(4), pages 319-329, August.
    10. Louviere,Jordan J. & Hensher,David A. & Swait,Joffre D. With contributions by-Name:Adamowicz,Wiktor, 2000. "Stated Choice Methods," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521788304.
    11. Tracey-Lea Laba & Beverley Essue & Merel Kimman & Stephen Jan, 2015. "Understanding Patient Preferences in Medication Nonadherence: A Review of Stated Preference Data," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 8(5), pages 385-395, October.
    12. Marion Danner & Vera Vennedey & Mickaël Hiligsmann & Sascha Fauser & Stephanie Stock, 2016. "Focus Groups in Elderly Ophthalmologic Patients: Setting the Stage for Quantitative Preference Elicitation," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 9(1), pages 47-57, February.
    13. Mark Harrison & Dan Rigby & Caroline Vass & Terry Flynn & Jordan Louviere & Katherine Payne, 2014. "Risk as an Attribute in Discrete Choice Experiments: A Systematic Review of the Literature," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 7(2), pages 151-170, June.
    14. Tanjala S. Purnell & Thomas J. Lynch & Lee Bone & Jodi B. Segal & Crystal Evans & Daniel R. Longo & John F. P. Bridges, 2016. "Perceived Barriers and Potential Strategies to Improve Self-Management Among Adults with Type 2 Diabetes: A Community-Engaged Research Approach," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 9(4), pages 349-358, August.
    15. Susan dosReis & Xinyi Ng & Emily Frosch & Gloria Reeves & Charles Cunningham & John Bridges, 2015. "Using Best–Worst Scaling to Measure Caregiver Preferences for Managing their Child’s ADHD: A Pilot Study," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 8(5), pages 423-431, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Brouwers, Jonas & Cox, Bianca & Van Wilder, Astrid & Claessens, Fien & Bruyneel, Luk & De Ridder, Dirk & Eeckloo, Kristof & Vanhaecht, Kris, 2021. "The future of hospital quality of care policy: A multi-stakeholder discrete choice experiment in Flanders, Belgium," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 125(12), pages 1565-1573.
    2. Anna Nicolet & Clémence Perraudin & Joël Wagner & Ingrid Gilles & Nicolas Krucien & Isabelle Peytremann-Bridevaux & Joachim Marti, 2022. "Patient and Public Preferences for Coordinated Care in Switzerland: Development of a Discrete Choice Experiment," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 15(4), pages 485-496, July.
    3. Zhou, Mo & Bridges, John F.P., 2019. "Explore preference heterogeneity for treatment among people with Type 2 diabetes: A comparison of random-parameters and latent-class estimation techniques," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 30(C), pages 38-49.
    4. Eve Wittenberg, 2016. "Instrument Development in Choice Experiments. Commentary on: “Applying a Framework for Instrument Development of a Choice Experiment to Measure Treatment Preferences in Type 2 Diabetes”," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 9(5), pages 379-381, October.
    5. Dudinskaya, Emilia Cubero & Naspetti, Simona & Zanoli, Raffaele, 2020. "Using eye-tracking as an aid to design on-screen choice experiments," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 36(C).
    6. Aizaki, Hideo & Fogarty, James, 2019. "An R package and tutorial for case 2 best–worst scaling," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 32(C), pages 1-1.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Mahieu, Pierre-Alexandre & Andersson, Henrik & Beaumais, Olivier & Crastes dit Sourd, Romain & Hess, François-Charles & Wolff, François-Charles, 2017. "Stated preferences: a unique database composed of 1657 recent published articles in journals related to agriculture, environment, or health," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), vol. 98(3), November.
    2. Osborne, Matthew & Lambe, Fiona & Ran, Ylva & Dehmel, Naira & Tabacco, Giovanni Alberto & Balungira, Joshua & Pérez-Viana, Borja & Widmark, Erik & Holmlid, Stefan & Verschoor, Arjan, 2022. "Designing development interventions: The application of service design and discrete choice experiments in complex settings," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 158(C).
    3. Tinelli, Michela & Petrou, Panagiotis & Samoutis, George & Traynor, Vivie & Olympios, George & McGuire, Alistair, 2017. "Implementing shared-decision-making for diabetes care across country settings: What really matters to people?," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 121(7), pages 786-792.
    4. Pierre-Alexandre Mahieu & Henrik Andersson & Olivier Beaumais & Romain Crastes & François-Charles Wolff, 2014. "Is Choice Experiment Becoming more Popular than Contingent Valuation? A Systematic Review in Agriculture, Environment and Health," Working Papers 2014.12, FAERE - French Association of Environmental and Resource Economists.
    5. Souraya Sidani & Dana R. Epstein & Mary Fox & Joyal Miranda, 2018. "Psychometric Properties of the Treatment Perception and Preferences Measure," Clinical Nursing Research, , vol. 27(6), pages 743-761, July.
    6. Robert J. Johnston & Kevin J. Boyle & Wiktor (Vic) Adamowicz & Jeff Bennett & Roy Brouwer & Trudy Ann Cameron & W. Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Riccardo Scarpa & Roger Tourangeau & Ch, 2017. "Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(2), pages 319-405.
    7. Sagebiel, Julian & Müller, Jakob R. & Rommel, Jens, 2013. "Are Consumers Willing to Pay More for Electricity from Cooperatives? Results from an Online Choice Experiment in Germany," MPRA Paper 52385, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. Axel C. Mühlbacher & Anika Kaczynski & Peter Zweifel & F. Reed Johnson, 2016. "Experimental measurement of preferences in health and healthcare using best-worst scaling: an overview," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 6(1), pages 1-14, December.
    9. Fischer, Barbara & Telser, Harry & Zweifel, Peter, 2018. "End-of-life healthcare expenditure: Testing economic explanations using a discrete choice experiment," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 30-38.
    10. Marta Trapero-Bertran & Beatriz Rodríguez-Martín & Julio López-Bastida, 2019. "What attributes should be included in a discrete choice experiment related to health technologies? A systematic literature review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(7), pages 1-15, July.
    11. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Rose, John M. & Oppewal, Harmen & Lancsar, Emily, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part I. Macro-scale analysis of literature and integrative synthesis of empirical evidence from applied economics, experimental psychology and neuroimag," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    12. John Buckell & Joachim Marti & Jody L. Sindelar, 2017. "Should Flavors be Banned in E-cigarettes? Evidence on Adult Smokers and Recent Quitters from a Discrete Choice Experiment," NBER Working Papers 23865, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    13. Sriwastava, Ambuj & Reichert, Peter, 2023. "Reducing sample size requirements by extending discrete choice experiments to indifference elicitation," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 48(C).
    14. Flavio Boccia & Rosa Malgeri Manzo & Daniela Covino, 2019. "Consumer behavior and corporate social responsibility: An evaluation by a choice experiment," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(1), pages 97-105, January.
    15. Viberg Johansson, Jennifer & Shah, Nisha & Haraldsdóttir, Eik & Bentzen, Heidi Beate & Coy, Sarah & Kaye, Jane & Mascalzoni, Deborah & Veldwijk, Jorien, 2021. "Governance mechanisms for sharing of health data: An approach towards selecting attributes for complex discrete choice experiment studies," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 66(C).
    16. Mandy Ryan & Nicolas Krucien & Frouke Hermens, 2018. "The eyes have it: Using eye tracking to inform information processing strategies in multi‐attributes choices," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(4), pages 709-721, April.
    17. Martin, Inès & Vranken, Liesbet & Ugás, Roberto, 2021. "Farmers’ Preferences to Cultivate Threatened Crop Varieties: Evidence from Peru," 2021 Conference, August 17-31, 2021, Virtual 315216, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    18. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Hensher, David A., 2021. "The landscape of econometric discrete choice modelling research," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    19. Peyron, Christine & Pélissier, Aurore & Béjean, Sophie, 2018. "Preference heterogeneity with respect to whole genome sequencing. A discrete choice experiment among parents of children with rare genetic diseases," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 214(C), pages 125-132.
    20. Spinks, Jean & Mortimer, Duncan, 2015. "The effect of traffic lights and regulatory statements on the choice between complementary and conventional medicines in Australia: Results from a discrete choice experiment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 257-265.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:spr:patien:v:9:y:2016:i:5:d:10.1007_s40271-016-0170-3. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.