Constructing experimental designs for discrete-choice experiments: report of the ISPOR Conjoint Analysis Experimental Design Good Research Practices Task Force
- PMID: 23337210
- DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2012.08.2223
Constructing experimental designs for discrete-choice experiments: report of the ISPOR Conjoint Analysis Experimental Design Good Research Practices Task Force
Abstract
Stated-preference methods are a class of evaluation techniques for studying the preferences of patients and other stakeholders. While these methods span a variety of techniques, conjoint-analysis methods-and particularly discrete-choice experiments (DCEs)-have become the most frequently applied approach in health care in recent years. Experimental design is an important stage in the development of such methods, but establishing a consensus on standards is hampered by lack of understanding of available techniques and software. This report builds on the previous ISPOR Conjoint Analysis Task Force Report: Conjoint Analysis Applications in Health-A Checklist: A Report of the ISPOR Good Research Practices for Conjoint Analysis Task Force. This report aims to assist researchers specifically in evaluating alternative approaches to experimental design, a difficult and important element of successful DCEs. While this report does not endorse any specific approach, it does provide a guide for choosing an approach that is appropriate for a particular study. In particular, it provides an overview of the role of experimental designs for the successful implementation of the DCE approach in health care studies, and it provides researchers with an introduction to constructing experimental designs on the basis of study objectives and the statistical model researchers have selected for the study. The report outlines the theoretical requirements for designs that identify choice-model preference parameters and summarizes and compares a number of available approaches for constructing experimental designs. The task-force leadership group met via bimonthly teleconferences and in person at ISPOR meetings in the United States and Europe. An international group of experimental-design experts was consulted during this process to discuss existing approaches for experimental design and to review the task force's draft reports. In addition, ISPOR members contributed to developing a consensus report by submitting written comments during the review process and oral comments during two forum presentations at the ISPOR 16th and 17th Annual International Meetings held in Baltimore (2011) and Washington, DC (2012).
Copyright © 2013 International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Similar articles
-
Statistical Methods for the Analysis of Discrete Choice Experiments: A Report of the ISPOR Conjoint Analysis Good Research Practices Task Force.Value Health. 2016 Jun;19(4):300-15. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2016.04.004. Epub 2016 May 12. Value Health. 2016. PMID: 27325321
-
The ISPOR Good Practices for Quality Improvement of Cost-Effectiveness Research Task Force Report.Value Health. 2009 Nov-Dec;12(8):1086-99. doi: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2009.00605.x. Epub 2009 Sep 10. Value Health. 2009. PMID: 19744291
-
Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS)--explanation and elaboration: a report of the ISPOR Health Economic Evaluation Publication Guidelines Good Reporting Practices Task Force.Value Health. 2013 Mar-Apr;16(2):231-50. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2013.02.002. Value Health. 2013. PMID: 23538175
-
Application of Discrete Choice Experiment in Health Care: A Bibliometric Analysis.Front Public Health. 2021 Jun 4;9:673698. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2021.673698. eCollection 2021. Front Public Health. 2021. PMID: 34150710 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Selecting a dynamic simulation modeling method for health care delivery research-part 2: report of the ISPOR Dynamic Simulation Modeling Emerging Good Practices Task Force.Value Health. 2015 Mar;18(2):147-60. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2015.01.006. Value Health. 2015. PMID: 25773550 Review.
Cited by
-
Acceptability of linking individual credit, financial, and public records data to healthcare records for suicide risk machine learning models.JAMIA Open. 2024 Oct 21;7(4):ooae113. doi: 10.1093/jamiaopen/ooae113. eCollection 2024 Dec. JAMIA Open. 2024. PMID: 39434890 Free PMC article.
-
What do Iranians value most when choosing a hospital? Evidence from a discrete choice experiment.PLoS One. 2024 Oct 17;19(10):e0293241. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0293241. eCollection 2024. PLoS One. 2024. PMID: 39418239 Free PMC article.
-
Urban-rural differences in preferences for traditional Chinese medicine services among chronic disease patients: a discrete choice experiment.BMC Complement Med Ther. 2024 Oct 14;24(1):369. doi: 10.1186/s12906-024-04659-z. BMC Complement Med Ther. 2024. PMID: 39402534 Free PMC article.
-
Preferences for pre-exposure prophylaxis delivery via online pharmacy among potential users in Kenya: a discrete choice experiment.J Int AIDS Soc. 2024 Oct;27(10):e26356. doi: 10.1002/jia2.26356. J Int AIDS Soc. 2024. PMID: 39385266 Free PMC article.
-
Exploration of preferences among people with COPD to inform resource allocation: a discrete choice experiment study.BMJ Open Respir Res. 2024 Oct 9;11(1):e001914. doi: 10.1136/bmjresp-2023-001914. BMJ Open Respir Res. 2024. PMID: 39384337 Free PMC article.
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Medical
Miscellaneous