IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/patien/v16y2023i3d10.1007_s40271-023-00615-0.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Vikas Soekhai

    (Erasmus University Rotterdam
    Erasmus University Rotterdam
    Erasmus MC, Erasmus University Medical Center Rotterdam)

  • Bas Donkers

    (Erasmus University Rotterdam
    Erasmus University Rotterdam)

  • Jennifer Viberg Johansson

    (Uppsala University
    Institute of Futures Studies)

  • Cecilia Jimenez-Moreno

    (Newcastle University
    Patient Centered Research)

  • Cathy Anne Pinto

    (Merck & Co., Inc.)

  • G. Ardine Wit

    (Utrecht University)

  • Esther Bekker-Grob

    (Erasmus University Rotterdam
    Erasmus University Rotterdam)

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Vikas Soekhai & Bas Donkers & Jennifer Viberg Johansson & Cecilia Jimenez-Moreno & Cathy Anne Pinto & G. Ardine Wit & Esther Bekker-Grob, 2023. "Comparing Outcomes of a Discrete Choice Experiment and Case 2 Best-Worst Scaling: An Application to Neuromuscular Disease Treatment," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 16(3), pages 239-253, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:patien:v:16:y:2023:i:3:d:10.1007_s40271-023-00615-0
    DOI: 10.1007/s40271-023-00615-0
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40271-023-00615-0
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40271-023-00615-0?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hess, Stephane & Palma, David, 2019. "Apollo: A flexible, powerful and customisable freeware package for choice model estimation and application," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 32(C), pages 1-1.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Frings, Oliver & Abildtrup, Jens & Montagné-Huck, Claire & Gorel, Salomé & Stenger, Anne, 2023. "Do individual PES buyers care about additionality and free-riding? A choice experiment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 213(C).
    2. Chorus, Caspar & van Cranenburgh, Sander & Daniel, Aemiro Melkamu & Sandorf, Erlend Dancke & Sobhani, Anae & Szép, Teodóra, 2021. "Obfuscation maximization-based decision-making: Theory, methodology and first empirical evidence," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 28-44.
    3. Nikita Arora & Matthew Quaife & Kara Hanson & Mylene Lagarde & Dorka Woldesenbet & Abiy Seifu & Romain Crastes dit Sourd, 2022. "Discrete choice analysis of health worker job preferences in Ethiopia: Separating attribute non‐attendance from taste heterogeneity," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(5), pages 806-819, May.
    4. Lu, Hui & Hess, Stephane & Daly, Andrew & Rohr, Charlene & Patruni, Bhanu & Vuk, Goran, 2021. "Using state-of-the-art models in applied work: Travellers willingness to pay for a toll tunnel in Copenhagen," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 154(C), pages 37-52.
    5. Iogansen, Xiatian & Wang, Kailai & Bunch, David & Matson, Grant & Circella, Giovanni, 2023. "Deciphering the factors associated with adoption of alternative fuel vehicles in California: An investigation of latent attitudes, socio-demographics, and neighborhood effects," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 168(C).
    6. Broberg, Thomas & Daniel, Aemiro Melkamu & Persson, Lars, 2021. "Household preferences for load restrictions: Is there an effect of pro-environmental framing?," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    7. Gómez-Limón, José A. & Granado-Díaz, Rubén, 2023. "Assessing the demand for hydrological drought insurance in irrigated agriculture," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 276(C).
    8. John Buckell & Vrinda Vasavada & Sarah Wordsworth & Dean A. Regier & Matthew Quaife, 2022. "Utility maximization versus regret minimization in health choice behavior: Evidence from four datasets," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(2), pages 363-381, February.
    9. Peter Slade & Mila Markevych, 2024. "Killing the sacred dairy cow? Consumer preferences for plant‐based milk alternatives," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 40(1), pages 70-92, January.
    10. Ouvrard, Benjamin & Abildtrup, Jens & Stenger, Anne, 2020. "Nudging Acceptability for Wood Ash Recycling in Forests: A Choice Experiment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 177(C).
    11. Jia, Wenjian & Jiang, Zhiqiu & Wang, Qian & Xu, Bin & Xiao, Mei, 2023. "Preferences for zero-emission vehicle attributes: Comparing early adopters with mainstream consumers in California," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 135(C), pages 21-32.
    12. Kim, Seheon & Rasouli, Soora, 2022. "The influence of latent lifestyle on acceptance of Mobility-as-a-Service (MaaS): A hierarchical latent variable and latent class approach," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 159(C), pages 304-319.
    13. Carolina Silva Costa & Cira Souza Pitombo & Felipe Lobo Umbelino de Souza, 2022. "Travel Behavior before and during the COVID-19 Pandemic in Brazil: Mobility Changes and Transport Policies for a Sustainable Transportation System in the Post-Pandemic Period," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(8), pages 1-25, April.
    14. Arora, Nikita & Crastes dit Sourd, Romain & Hanson, Kara & Woldesenbet, Dorka & Seifu, Abiy & Quaife, Matthew, 2022. "Linking health worker motivation with their stated job preferences: A hybrid choice analysis in Ethiopia," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 307(C).
    15. Konstantinus, Abisai & Zuidgeest, Mark & Hess, Stephane & de Jong, Gerard, 2020. "Assessing inter-urban freight mode choice preference for short-sea shipping in the Southern African Development Community region," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    16. Roy-Chowdhury, V., 2022. "Self-Confidence and Motivated Memory Loss: Evidence from Schools," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 2213, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
    17. Joalland, Olivier & Mahieu, Pierre-Alexandre, 2023. "Developing large-scale offshore wind power programs: A choice experiment analysis in France," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 204(PA).
    18. Edenbrandt, Anna Kristina & Lagerkvist, Carl-Johan & Lüken, Malte & Orquin, Jacob L., 2022. "Seen but not considered? Awareness and consideration in choice analysis," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 45(C).
    19. Kim, Sung Hoo & Mokhtarian, Patricia L., 2023. "Finite mixture (or latent class) modeling in transportation: Trends, usage, potential, and future directions," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 172(C), pages 134-173.
    20. Fangqing Song & Stephane Hess & Thijs Dekker, 2024. "Uncovering the link between intra-individual heterogeneity and variety seeking: the case of new shared mobility," Transportation, Springer, vol. 51(2), pages 371-406, April.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:patien:v:16:y:2023:i:3:d:10.1007_s40271-023-00615-0. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.