Comparing Outcomes of a Discrete Choice Experiment and Case 2 Best-Worst Scaling: An Application to Neuromuscular Disease Treatment.

IF 3.4 3区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Vikas Soekhai, Bas Donkers, Jennifer Viberg Johansson, Cecilia Jimenez-Moreno, Cathy Anne Pinto, G Ardine de Wit, Esther de Bekker-Grob
{"title":"Comparing Outcomes of a Discrete Choice Experiment and Case 2 Best-Worst Scaling: An Application to Neuromuscular Disease Treatment.","authors":"Vikas Soekhai,&nbsp;Bas Donkers,&nbsp;Jennifer Viberg Johansson,&nbsp;Cecilia Jimenez-Moreno,&nbsp;Cathy Anne Pinto,&nbsp;G Ardine de Wit,&nbsp;Esther de Bekker-Grob","doi":"10.1007/s40271-023-00615-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and objectives: </strong>Case 2 best-worst scaling (BWS-2) is an increasingly popular method to elicit patient preferences. Because BWS-2 potentially has a lower cognitive burden compared with discrete choice experiments, the aim of this study was to compare treatment preference weights and relative importance scores.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Patients with neuromuscular diseases completed an online survey at two different moments in time, completing one method per occasion. Patients were randomly assigned to either first a discrete choice experiment or BWS-2. Attributes included: muscle strength, energy endurance, balance, cognition, chance of blurry vision, and chance of liver damage. Multinomial logit was used to calculate overall relative importance scores and latent class logit was used to estimate heterogeneous preference weights and to calculate the relative importance scores of the attributes for each latent class.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 140 patients were included for analyses. Overall relative importance scores showed differences in attribute importance rankings between a discrete choice experiment and BWS-2. Latent class analyses indicated three latent classes for both methods, with a specific class in both the discrete choice experiment and BWS-2 in which (avoiding) liver damage was the most important attribute. Ex-post analyses showed that classes differed in sex, age, level of education, and disease status. The discrete choice experiment was easier to understand compared with BWS-2.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study showed that using a discrete choice experiment and BWS-2 leads to different outcomes, both in preference weights as well as in relative importance scores, which might have been caused by the different framing of risks in BWS-2. However, a latent class analysis revealed similar latent classes between methods. Careful consideration about method selection is required, while keeping the specific decision context in mind and pilot testing the methods.</p>","PeriodicalId":51271,"journal":{"name":"Patient-Patient Centered Outcomes Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/fc/c1/40271_2023_Article_615.PMC10121531.pdf","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Patient-Patient Centered Outcomes Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-023-00615-0","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: 1

Abstract

Background and objectives: Case 2 best-worst scaling (BWS-2) is an increasingly popular method to elicit patient preferences. Because BWS-2 potentially has a lower cognitive burden compared with discrete choice experiments, the aim of this study was to compare treatment preference weights and relative importance scores.

Methods: Patients with neuromuscular diseases completed an online survey at two different moments in time, completing one method per occasion. Patients were randomly assigned to either first a discrete choice experiment or BWS-2. Attributes included: muscle strength, energy endurance, balance, cognition, chance of blurry vision, and chance of liver damage. Multinomial logit was used to calculate overall relative importance scores and latent class logit was used to estimate heterogeneous preference weights and to calculate the relative importance scores of the attributes for each latent class.

Results: A total of 140 patients were included for analyses. Overall relative importance scores showed differences in attribute importance rankings between a discrete choice experiment and BWS-2. Latent class analyses indicated three latent classes for both methods, with a specific class in both the discrete choice experiment and BWS-2 in which (avoiding) liver damage was the most important attribute. Ex-post analyses showed that classes differed in sex, age, level of education, and disease status. The discrete choice experiment was easier to understand compared with BWS-2.

Conclusions: This study showed that using a discrete choice experiment and BWS-2 leads to different outcomes, both in preference weights as well as in relative importance scores, which might have been caused by the different framing of risks in BWS-2. However, a latent class analysis revealed similar latent classes between methods. Careful consideration about method selection is required, while keeping the specific decision context in mind and pilot testing the methods.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

比较离散选择实验和案例2最佳-最差标度的结果:在神经肌肉疾病治疗中的应用。
背景和目的:案例2最佳-最差评分(BWS-2)是一种越来越流行的方法,以引起患者的偏好。由于与离散选择实验相比,BWS-2可能具有更低的认知负担,因此本研究的目的是比较治疗偏好权重和相对重要性得分。方法:神经肌肉疾病患者在两个不同的时间完成在线调查,每次完成一种方法。患者被随机分配到第一个离散选择实验或BWS-2。属性包括:肌肉力量、能量耐力、平衡、认知、视力模糊的几率和肝损伤的几率。使用多项logit计算总体相对重要性分数,使用潜在类别logit估计异质性偏好权重,并计算每个潜在类别属性的相对重要性分数。结果:共纳入140例患者进行分析。总体相对重要性得分在离散选择实验和BWS-2之间显示出属性重要性排名的差异。潜在类别分析表明,两种方法都有三个潜在类别,在离散选择实验和BWS-2中都有一个特定的类别,(避免)肝损伤是最重要的属性。事后分析表明,班级在性别、年龄、教育水平和疾病状况方面存在差异。与BWS-2相比,离散选择实验更容易理解。结论:本研究表明,使用离散选择实验和BWS-2会导致不同的结果,无论是偏好权重还是相对重要性得分,这可能是由于BWS-2中的风险框架不同造成的。然而,潜在类分析揭示了方法之间相似的潜在类。需要仔细考虑方法选择,同时牢记特定的决策上下文并对方法进行试点测试。
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