Discrete Choice Experiment Versus Best-Worst Scaling: An Empirical Comparison in Eliciting Young People's Preferences for Web-Based Mental Health Interventions.

IF 3.4 3区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Thi Quynh Anh Ho, Lidia Engel, Long Khanh-Dao Le, Glenn Melvin, Jemimah Ride, Ha N D Le, Cathrine Mihalopoulos
{"title":"Discrete Choice Experiment Versus Best-Worst Scaling: An Empirical Comparison in Eliciting Young People's Preferences for Web-Based Mental Health Interventions.","authors":"Thi Quynh Anh Ho, Lidia Engel, Long Khanh-Dao Le, Glenn Melvin, Jemimah Ride, Ha N D Le, Cathrine Mihalopoulos","doi":"10.1007/s40271-025-00739-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) and best-worst scaling (BWS) profile cases (BWS case 2, or BWS-2) have been increasingly used in eliciting preferences towards health care interventions. However, it remains unclear which method is more suitable for preference elicitation, particularly in the mental health context. This study aims to compare: (1) the preference results elicited from a DCE and BWS-2; and (2) the acceptability of the two methods in the context of web-based mental health interventions (W-MHIs) for managing anxiety and depression in young people.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Participants were aged 18-25 years, lived in Australia, and self-reported experiencing anxiety and/or depression in the past 12 months. They also had either an intention to use W-MHIs or previous experience with W-MHIs for managing anxiety and/or depression. Recruitment was conducted online via social media and Deakin University notice boards. Eligible participants completed an online survey containing eight DCE and eight BWS-2 choice tasks. Both types of choice tasks comprised six attributes. A multinominal logit model was used to estimate the preference weights and relative importance of attributes. Acceptability was assessed on the basis of dropout rate, completion time, task difficulty, understanding, and participants' preferred type of choice task.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 198 participants (mean age: 21.42 ± 2.3 years, 64.65% female) completed the survey. Both DCE and BWS-2 predicted that cost was the most important attribute in young people's decision to engage with W-MHIs. However, the two methods differed in the relative importance of attributes and the preference ranking of levels within attributes. The DCE was perceived as easier to understand and answer, with nearly 64% of the participants preferring it over the BWS-2.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>While both methods found cost was the most important attribute associated with engagement with W-MHIs, differences in the ranking of other attributes suggest that DCE and BWS-2 are not necessarily interchangeable. Increased acceptability by study participants of the DCE format suggests that this technique may have more merit than BWS-2-at least in the current study's context. Further research is required to identify the optimal method for determining the relative importance of attributes.</p>","PeriodicalId":51271,"journal":{"name":"Patient-Patient Centered Outcomes Research","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Patient-Patient Centered Outcomes Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-025-00739-5","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) and best-worst scaling (BWS) profile cases (BWS case 2, or BWS-2) have been increasingly used in eliciting preferences towards health care interventions. However, it remains unclear which method is more suitable for preference elicitation, particularly in the mental health context. This study aims to compare: (1) the preference results elicited from a DCE and BWS-2; and (2) the acceptability of the two methods in the context of web-based mental health interventions (W-MHIs) for managing anxiety and depression in young people.

Methods: Participants were aged 18-25 years, lived in Australia, and self-reported experiencing anxiety and/or depression in the past 12 months. They also had either an intention to use W-MHIs or previous experience with W-MHIs for managing anxiety and/or depression. Recruitment was conducted online via social media and Deakin University notice boards. Eligible participants completed an online survey containing eight DCE and eight BWS-2 choice tasks. Both types of choice tasks comprised six attributes. A multinominal logit model was used to estimate the preference weights and relative importance of attributes. Acceptability was assessed on the basis of dropout rate, completion time, task difficulty, understanding, and participants' preferred type of choice task.

Results: A total of 198 participants (mean age: 21.42 ± 2.3 years, 64.65% female) completed the survey. Both DCE and BWS-2 predicted that cost was the most important attribute in young people's decision to engage with W-MHIs. However, the two methods differed in the relative importance of attributes and the preference ranking of levels within attributes. The DCE was perceived as easier to understand and answer, with nearly 64% of the participants preferring it over the BWS-2.

Conclusions: While both methods found cost was the most important attribute associated with engagement with W-MHIs, differences in the ranking of other attributes suggest that DCE and BWS-2 are not necessarily interchangeable. Increased acceptability by study participants of the DCE format suggests that this technique may have more merit than BWS-2-at least in the current study's context. Further research is required to identify the optimal method for determining the relative importance of attributes.

离散选择实验与最佳-最差尺度:在引出年轻人对基于网络的心理健康干预偏好的实证比较。
背景:离散选择实验(dce)和最佳-最差尺度(BWS)案例(BWS案例2,或BWS-2)越来越多地用于引出对卫生保健干预措施的偏好。然而,目前尚不清楚哪种方法更适合于偏好激发,特别是在心理健康方面。本研究旨在比较:(1)DCE和BWS-2的偏好结果;(2)两种方法在基于网络的心理健康干预(W-MHIs)管理年轻人焦虑和抑郁的背景下的可接受性。方法:参与者年龄在18-25岁之间,居住在澳大利亚,自我报告在过去的12个月内经历过焦虑和/或抑郁。他们也有使用w - mhe的意图或以前使用w - mhe治疗焦虑和/或抑郁的经验。招聘是通过社交媒体和迪肯大学的布告栏进行的。合格的参与者完成了一项在线调查,其中包括8项DCE和8项BWS-2选择任务。这两种类型的选择任务都包含六个属性。采用多项逻辑模型估计属性的偏好权重和相对重要性。可接受性的评估基于辍学率、完成时间、任务难度、理解程度和参与者偏好的选择任务类型。结果:共198人完成调查,平均年龄21.42±2.3岁,女性64.65%。DCE和BWS-2均预测,成本是影响年轻人参与网络医疗服务决策的最重要因素。然而,这两种方法在属性的相对重要性和属性内级别的偏好排序方面存在差异。DCE被认为更容易理解和回答,近64%的参与者更喜欢它而不是BWS-2。结论:虽然两种方法都发现成本是与W-MHIs参与相关的最重要属性,但其他属性排名的差异表明DCE和BWS-2不一定是可互换的。研究参与者对DCE格式的接受度提高表明,这种技术可能比bws -2更有价值——至少在当前研究的上下文中是这样。确定属性相对重要性的最佳方法有待进一步研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Patient-Patient Centered Outcomes Research
Patient-Patient Centered Outcomes Research HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-
CiteScore
6.60
自引率
8.30%
发文量
44
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Patient provides a venue for scientifically rigorous, timely, and relevant research to promote the development, evaluation and implementation of therapies, technologies, and innovations that will enhance the patient experience. It is an international forum for research that advances and/or applies qualitative or quantitative methods to promote the generation, synthesis, or interpretation of evidence. The journal has specific interest in receiving original research, reviews and commentaries related to qualitative and mixed methods research, stated-preference methods, patient reported outcomes, and shared decision making. Advances in regulatory science, patient-focused drug development, patient-centered benefit-risk and health technology assessment will also be considered. Additional digital features (including animated abstracts, video abstracts, slide decks, audio slides, instructional videos, infographics, podcasts and animations) can be published with articles; these are designed to increase the visibility, readership and educational value of the journal’s content. In addition, articles published in The Patient may be accompanied by plain language summaries to assist readers who have some knowledge of, but not in-depth expertise in, the area to understand important medical advances. All manuscripts are subject to peer review by international experts.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信