scholarly journals A Systematic Review of Discrete-Choice Experiments and Conjoint Analysis Studies in People with Multiple Sclerosis

2018 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. 391-402 ◽  
Author(s):  
Edward J. D. Webb ◽  
David Meads ◽  
Ieva Eskyte ◽  
Natalie King ◽  
Naila Dracup ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Sclerosis ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Conjoint Analysis ◽  
Discrete Choice ◽  
Choice Experiments ◽  
Discrete Choice Experiments

scholarly journals Measuring trade-offs in nephrology: a systematic review of discrete choice experiments and conjoint analysis studies

2017 ◽  
Vol 33 (2) ◽  
pp. 348-355 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael D Clark ◽  
Ala Szczepura ◽  
Anil Gumber ◽  
Kirsten Howard ◽  
Domenico Moro ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Conjoint Analysis ◽  
Discrete Choice ◽  
Choice Experiments ◽  
Discrete Choice Experiments ◽  
Trade Offs

scholarly journals Do patients and health care providers have discordant preferences about which aspects of treatments matter most? Evidence from a systematic review of discrete choice experiments

BMJ Open ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 7 (5) ◽  
pp. e014719 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark Harrison ◽  
Katherine Milbers ◽  
Marie Hudson ◽  
Nick Bansback
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Healthcare Provider ◽  
Discrete Choice ◽  
Health Care Providers ◽  
Healthcare Providers ◽  
Choice Experiments ◽  
Discrete Choice Experiments ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Healthcare Interventions ◽  
Heterogeneity Of Preferences

ObjectivesTo review studies eliciting patient and healthcare provider preferences for healthcare interventions using discrete choice experiments (DCEs) to (1) review the methodology to evaluate similarities, differences, rigour of designs and whether comparisons are made at the aggregate level or account for individual heterogeneity; and (2) quantify the extent to which they demonstrate concordance of patient and healthcare provider preferences.MethodsA systematic review searching Medline, EMBASE, Econlit, PsycINFO and Web of Science for DCEs using patient and healthcare providers. Inclusion criteria: peer-reviewed; complete empiric text in English from 1995 to 31July 2015; discussing a healthcare-related topic; DCE methodology; comparing patients and healthcare providers.DesignSystematic review.ResultsWe identified 38 papers exploring 16 interventions in 26 diseases/indications. Methods to analyse results, determine concordance between patient and physician values, and explore heterogeneity varied considerably between studies. The majority of studies we reviewed found more evidence of mixed concordance and discordance (n=28) or discordance of patient and healthcare provider preferences (n=12) than of concordant preferences (n=4). A synthesis of concordance suggested that healthcare providers rank structure and outcome attributes more highly than patients, while patients rank process attributes more highly than healthcare providers.ConclusionsDiscordant patient and healthcare provider preferences for different attributes of healthcare interventions are common. Concordance varies according to whether attributes are processes, structures or outcomes, and therefore determining preference concordance should consider all aspects jointly and not a binary outcome. DCE studies provide excellent opportunities to assess value concordance between patients and providers, but assessment of concordance was limited by a lack of consistency in the approaches used and consideration of heterogeneity of preferences. Future DCEs assessing concordance should fully report the framing of the questions and investigate the heterogeneity of preferences within groups and how these compare.

scholarly journals Risk as an Attribute in Discrete Choice Experiments: A Systematic Review of the Literature

2014 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 151-170 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark Harrison ◽  
Dan Rigby ◽  
Caroline Vass ◽  
Terry Flynn ◽  
Jordan Louviere ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Discrete Choice ◽  
Choice Experiments ◽  
Discrete Choice Experiments ◽  
Review Of The Literature

scholarly journals Uptake of Discrete Choice Experiments in Healthcare in Southeast Asia: A Systematic Review

2018 ◽  
Vol 21 ◽  
pp. S90
Author(s):  
PT Chhabra ◽  
S Kayaniyil ◽  
R Tao ◽  
E Korol ◽  
R Sambrook
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Southeast Asia ◽  
Discrete Choice ◽  
Choice Experiments ◽  
Discrete Choice Experiments
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document