Jiali Chen, Xiaodan Qian, Dan Su, Jinhong Gong, Jingjing Shang, Lingli Zhang, Xin Li
{"title":"An Empirical Comparison of Discrete Choice Experiment and Best-Worst Scaling to Estimate Patient Preferences in Infertility Treatment in China.","authors":"Jiali Chen, Xiaodan Qian, Dan Su, Jinhong Gong, Jingjing Shang, Lingli Zhang, Xin Li","doi":"10.2147/PPA.S501723","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Infertility has become a growing public health problem in China. It is important to accurately and easily obtain patient preferences. This study aimed to obtain and compare stated preference results from the perspective of infertility patients. By assessing the validity and acceptability of both methods, it provides lessons for empirical research and practical application.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Discrete choice experiments (DCE) and profile case best-worst scaling (BWS-2) are methods used to identify and weigh various criteria affecting the order of priorities. We conducted a face-to-face survey of female patients with infertility aged between 20-45 years. The survey included socio-demographic information, preference questionnaires and completion of evaluation questions. Attributes included live birth rate, pregnancy rate, degree of participation in treatment decision making, maternal complications, neonatal complications and program cost. Conditional logit models were used to analyze attribute level weights and relative importance was calculated separately.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 330 valid questionnaires were collected. The preferences of patients experiencing infertility were quantified through two stated preference research methods. The findings indicated that patients exhibited a preference for treatment options that were highly effective, exhibited minimal side effects, were patient-centered, and were cost-effective. The BWS-2 and DCE preference weights demonstrated high consistency, with only slight difference observed in the ranking of individual attributes within the order of relative importance. In the view of the patients, the DCE questions were perceived to be less challenging to comprehend and were therefore preferred to be completed.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The BWS-2 and DCE exhibit identical validity and highly consistent preference results. In the context of specific research questions, the selection of a method or the combination of methods must be suitable to the purpose of the study in order to ensure that the utility gained is maximized. Further research is required to corroborate these findings.</p>","PeriodicalId":19972,"journal":{"name":"Patient preference and adherence","volume":"19 ","pages":"869-882"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11969040/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Patient preference and adherence","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/PPA.S501723","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Infertility has become a growing public health problem in China. It is important to accurately and easily obtain patient preferences. This study aimed to obtain and compare stated preference results from the perspective of infertility patients. By assessing the validity and acceptability of both methods, it provides lessons for empirical research and practical application.
Methods: Discrete choice experiments (DCE) and profile case best-worst scaling (BWS-2) are methods used to identify and weigh various criteria affecting the order of priorities. We conducted a face-to-face survey of female patients with infertility aged between 20-45 years. The survey included socio-demographic information, preference questionnaires and completion of evaluation questions. Attributes included live birth rate, pregnancy rate, degree of participation in treatment decision making, maternal complications, neonatal complications and program cost. Conditional logit models were used to analyze attribute level weights and relative importance was calculated separately.
Results: A total of 330 valid questionnaires were collected. The preferences of patients experiencing infertility were quantified through two stated preference research methods. The findings indicated that patients exhibited a preference for treatment options that were highly effective, exhibited minimal side effects, were patient-centered, and were cost-effective. The BWS-2 and DCE preference weights demonstrated high consistency, with only slight difference observed in the ranking of individual attributes within the order of relative importance. In the view of the patients, the DCE questions were perceived to be less challenging to comprehend and were therefore preferred to be completed.
Conclusion: The BWS-2 and DCE exhibit identical validity and highly consistent preference results. In the context of specific research questions, the selection of a method or the combination of methods must be suitable to the purpose of the study in order to ensure that the utility gained is maximized. Further research is required to corroborate these findings.
期刊介绍:
Patient Preference and Adherence is an international, peer reviewed, open access journal that focuses on the growing importance of patient preference and adherence throughout the therapeutic continuum. The journal is characterized by the rapid reporting of reviews, original research, modeling and clinical studies across all therapeutic areas. Patient satisfaction, acceptability, quality of life, compliance, persistence and their role in developing new therapeutic modalities and compounds to optimize clinical outcomes for existing disease states are major areas of interest for the journal.
As of 1st April 2019, Patient Preference and Adherence will no longer consider meta-analyses for publication.