IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v38y2018i6p746-755.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Individual Value Clarification Methods Based on Conjoint Analysis: A Systematic Review of Common Practice in Task Design, Statistical Analysis, and Presentation of Results

Author

Listed:
  • Marieke G.M. Weernink

    (Department of Health Technology and Services Research, MIRA—Institute for Biomedical Technology and Technical Medicine, University of Twente, Enschede, the Netherlands)

  • Janine A. van Til

    (Department of Health Technology and Services Research, MIRA—Institute for Biomedical Technology and Technical Medicine, University of Twente, Enschede, the Netherlands)

  • Holly O. Witteman

    (Department of Family and Emergency Medicine, Office of Education and Professional Development, Laval University, Quebec City, QC, Canada
    Population Health and Optimal Health Practices Research Unit, CHU de Québec, Quebec City, QC, Canada)

  • Liana Fraenkel

    (School of Medicine, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA)

  • Maarten J. IJzerman

    (Department of Health Technology and Services Research, MIRA—Institute for Biomedical Technology and Technical Medicine, University of Twente, Enschede, the Netherlands)

Abstract

Background. There is an increased practice of using value clarification exercises in decision aids that aim to improve shared decision making. Our objective was to systematically review to which extent conjoint analysis (CA) is used to elicit individual preferences for clinical decision support. We aimed to identify the common practices in the selection of attributes and levels, the design of choice tasks, and the instrument used to clarify values. Methods. We searched Scopus, PubMed, PsycINFO, and Web of Science to identify studies that developed a CA exercise to elicit individual patients’ preferences related to medical decisions. We extracted data on the above-mentioned items. Results. Eight studies were identified. Studies included a fixed set of 4–8 attributes, which were predetermined by interviews, focus groups, or literature review. All studies used adaptive conjoint analysis (ACA) for their choice task design. Furthermore, all studies provided patients with their preference results in real time, although the type of outcome that was presented to patients differed (attribute importance or treatment scores). Among studies, patients were positive about the ACA exercise, whereas time and effort needed from clinicians to facilitate the ACA exercise were identified as the main barriers to implementation. Discussion. There is only limited published use of CA exercises in shared decision making. Most studies resembled each other in design choices made, but patients received different feedback among studies. Further research should focus on the feedback patients want to receive and how the CA results fit within the patient–physician dialogue.

Suggested Citation

  • Marieke G.M. Weernink & Janine A. van Til & Holly O. Witteman & Liana Fraenkel & Maarten J. IJzerman, 2018. "Individual Value Clarification Methods Based on Conjoint Analysis: A Systematic Review of Common Practice in Task Design, Statistical Analysis, and Presentation of Results," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 38(6), pages 746-755, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:38:y:2018:i:6:p:746-755
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X18765185
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X18765185
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X18765185?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Holly O. Witteman & Laura D. Scherer & Teresa Gavaruzzi & Arwen H. Pieterse & Andrea Fuhrel-Forbis & Selma Chipenda Dansokho & Nicole Exe & Valerie C. Kahn & Deb Feldman-Stewart & Nananda F. Col & Ale, 2016. "Design Features of Explicit Values Clarification Methods," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 36(4), pages 453-471, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Kowalska-Pyzalska, Anna & Michalski, Rafał & Kott, Marek & Skowrońska-Szmer, Anna & Kott, Joanna, 2022. "Consumer preferences towards alternative fuel vehicles. Results from the conjoint analysis," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 155(C).

    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. Laura D. Scherer & Jeffrey T. Kullgren & Tanner Caverly & Aaron M. Scherer & Victoria A. Shaffer & Angela Fagerlin & Brian J. Zikmund-Fisher, 2018. "Medical Maximizing-Minimizing Preferences Predict Responses to Information about Prostate-Specific Antigen Screening," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 38(6), pages 708-718, August.
    2. Nananda F. Col & Andrew J. Solomon & Vicky Springmann & Calvin P. Garbin & Carolina Ionete & Lori Pbert & Enrique Alvarez & Brenda Tierman & Ashli Hopson & Christen Kutz & Idanis Berrios Morales & Car, 2018. "Whose Preferences Matter? A Patient-Centered Approach for Eliciting Treatment Goals," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 38(1), pages 44-55, January.
    3. Bo Min Jeon & Su Hyun Kim & Soo Jung Lee, 2018. "Decisional conflict in end‐of‐life cancer treatment among family surrogates: A cross‐sectional survey," Nursing & Health Sciences, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(4), pages 472-478, December.

    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:sae:medema:v:38:y:2018:i:6:p:746-755. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.