Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login

Estimating Patients' Preferences for Medical Devices: Does the Number of Profile in Choice Experiments Matter?

Contents:

Author Info

  • John Bridges
  • Christine Buttorff
  • Karin Groothuis-Oudshoorn
Registered author(s):

    Abstract

    Background: Most applications of choice-based conjoint analysis in health use choice tasks with only two profiles, while those in marketing routinely use three or more. This study reports on a randomized trial comparing paired with triplet profile choice formats focused on measuring patient preference for hearing aids. Methods: Respondents with hearing loss were drawn from a nationally representative cohort, completed identical surveys incorporating a conjoint analysis, but were randomized to choice tasks with two or three profiles. Baseline differences between the two groups were explored using ANOVA and chi-square tests. The primary outcomes of differences in estimated preferences were explored using t-tests, likelihood ratio tests, and analysis 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. The only significant difference between the groups was time to complete the survey (11.5 and 21 minutes respectively). Pairs and triplets produced identical rankings of attribute importance but homogeneity was rejected (P

    Download Info

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
    File URL: http://www.nber.org/papers/w17482.pdf
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text is generally limited to series subscribers, however if the top level domain of the client browser is in a developing country or transition economy free access is provided. More information about subscriptions and free access is available at http://www.nber.org/wwphelp.html. Free access is also available to older working papers.

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

    Bibliographic Info

    Paper provided by National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc in its series NBER Working Papers with number 17482.

    as in new window
    Length:
    Date of creation: Oct 2011
    Date of revision:
    Handle: RePEc:nbr:nberwo:17482

    Note: HE
    Contact details of provider:
    Postal: National Bureau of Economic Research, 1050 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02138, U.S.A.
    Phone: 617-868-3900
    Email:
    Web page: http://www.nber.org
    More information through EDIRC

    Related research

    Keywords:

    Find related papers by JEL classification:

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    References

    No references listed on IDEAS
    You can help add them by filling out this form.

    Citations

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

    Cited by:
    1. Elizabeth Kinter & Thomas Prior & Christopher Carswell & John Bridges, 2012. "A Comparison of Two Experimental Design Approaches in Applying Conjoint Analysis in Patient-Centered Outcomes Research," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 279-294, December.

    Lists

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:nbr:nberwo:17482. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ().

    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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

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