scholarly journals Understanding Patient Preferences for HIV Medications Using Adaptive Conjoint Analysis: Feasibility Assessment

2005 ◽  
Vol 8 (4) ◽  
pp. 453-461 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kathleen M. Beusterien ◽  
Kristina Dziekan ◽  
Emuella Flood ◽  
Gale Harding ◽  
Jamie C. Jordan
2015 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 253 ◽  
Author(s):  
Basem Al-Omari ◽  
Julius Sim ◽  
Peter Croft ◽  
Martin Frisher

Rationale, aims and objectives Patient preferences are an important part of optimizing the pharmacological treatment of osteoarthritis (OA). Recent choice experiments have explored this issue using two types of conjoint analysis: choice-based conjoint analysis (CBCA) and adaptive conjoint analysis (ACA). The aim of this study was to examine the feasibility of using adaptive choice-based conjoint analysis (ACBCA) methods to determine patient preferences for pharmacological treatment of OA. The specific outcomes were patient evaluations of a) eight attributes in an ACBCA task, b) the computer skills required to complete the task, and c) the perceived utility of the results. Method Participants were drawn from members of a Research Users’ Group (RUG) who had been diagnosed with osteoarthritis. Participants took part in two feasibility studies. In the first feasibility study, four RUG members critically examined the implementation of a computerized ACBCA task. In the second feasibility study, 11 RUG members completed an ACBCA task on medication preferences for osteoarthritis. The ACBCA task was evaluated by a set of self-completed questions and through semi-structured interviews. ResultsThe first feasibility study helped to shape the design and contents of the ACBCA task. In the second feasibility study, no participants reported the ACBCA task to be hard to read or understand. Most participants agreed that the task was adjusting appropriately as the session proceeded and that it helped them in making decisions about preferences. Older patients and patients with little computer experience appeared to find no substantial challenges in using this interactive computer-based technique. ConclusionsThese studies indicate that, with the involvement of patients, face and content validity of an ACBCA task can be achieved through a developmental process taking account of participants’ requirements. 


Animals ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (5) ◽  
pp. 1358
Author(s):  
Glen Mactaggart ◽  
Natalie Waran ◽  
Clive J.C. Phillips

Identifying key welfare issues for thoroughbred racehorses could lead to an improvement in standards. A lack of scientific information on the relative importance of key issues was addressed by soliciting the views of, first, welfare experts in the industry and, second, a broader group of stakeholders, who selected the best welfare options by adaptive conjoint analysis. The experts represented racehorse breeders, veterinarians, trainers, owners, government officials, salespeople, farriers, transporters, and horse re-trainers for post-racing activities. In a focus group meeting, the experts identified fourteen key welfare issues, each with two to four levels that related to common husbandry practices. Then, in an internet survey, 224 stakeholders ranked the issues using adaptive conjoint analysis, in declining importance, as: horsemanship > health and disease > education of the horse > track design and surface > ventilation > stabling > weaning > transport > nutrition > wastage > heat and humidity > whips > environment > gear. Relatively uniform responses to the survey by the different stakeholder groups suggested that there was a common view on what had the biggest impact on welfare. An exception was a greater rating given by women than men to the importance of correct horse nutrition. The rating of importance for welfare of different levels of provision of each issue mostly conformed to the scientific evidence, with the exception of weaning. This understanding of the importance of welfare issues for thoroughbred racehorses could be used to target interventions to the most serious problems.


2018 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Saskia Spaich ◽  
Johanna Kinder ◽  
Svetlana Hetjens ◽  
Stefan Fuxius ◽  
Axel Gerhardt ◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
Vol 102 ◽  
pp. 12-22 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nathalie Moise ◽  
Dallas Wood ◽  
Ying Kuen K. Cheung ◽  
Naihua Duan ◽  
Tara St. Onge ◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
Vol 43 (7) ◽  
pp. 615-624.e4 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chelsea A. Harris ◽  
Melissa J. Shauver ◽  
Frank Yuan ◽  
Jacob Nasser ◽  
Kevin C. Chung

2018 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 9-14 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ava L. Liberman ◽  
Daniel Pinto ◽  
Sara K. Rostanski ◽  
Daniel L. Labovitz ◽  
Andrew M. Naidech ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document