IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v39y2019i7p816-826.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparison of Rating Scale, Time Tradeoff, and Conjoint Analysis Methods for Assessment of Preferences in Prostate Cancer

Author

Listed:
  • Robert M. Kaplan

    (Clinical Excellence Research Center, Department of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA USA)

  • Catherine M. Crespi

    (Department of Biostatistics, Fielding School of Public Health, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA)

  • Ely Dahan

    (deceased)

  • Josemanuel D. Saucedo

    (Department of Urology, UCLA David Geffen School of Medicine, Los Angeles, CA, USA)

  • Casey Pagan

    (Department of Urology, UCLA David Geffen School of Medicine, Los Angeles, CA, USA)

  • Christopher S. Saigal

    (Department of Urology, UCLA David Geffen School of Medicine, Los Angeles, CA, USA)

Abstract

Background . Conjoint analysis is widely used in studies of consumer preference but has only recently been applied to measure patient utilities for health outcomes. We compared the reliability, feasibility, and internal and predictive validity of conjoint scaling methods against better established rating scale and time tradeoff methods for assessing prostate cancer utilities in men at risk for prostate cancer. Methods . In total, 194 men who were biopsy negative for prostate cancer were randomly assigned to complete 2 preference assessment modules, either conjoint analysis and a rating scale module or conjoint analysis and a time tradeoff module. Each participant’s most important attribute was identified and evaluated in relation to age group (age

Suggested Citation

  • Robert M. Kaplan & Catherine M. Crespi & Ely Dahan & Josemanuel D. Saucedo & Casey Pagan & Christopher S. Saigal, 2019. "Comparison of Rating Scale, Time Tradeoff, and Conjoint Analysis Methods for Assessment of Preferences in Prostate Cancer," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 39(7), pages 816-826, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:39:y:2019:i:7:p:816-826
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X19873667
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X19873667
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X19873667?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. Paul Dolan & Claire Gudex & Paul Kind & Alan Williams, 1996. "The time trade‐off method: Results from a general population study," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 5(2), pages 141-154, March.
    2. Richardson, J., 1994. "Cost utility analysis: What should be measured?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 7-21, July.
    3. Ryan, Mandy, 1999. "Using conjoint analysis to take account of patient preferences and go beyond health outcomes: an application to in vitro fertilisation," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 48(4), pages 535-546, February.
    4. Zafar Hakim & Dev S. Pathak, 1999. "Modelling the EuroQol data: a comparison of discrete choice conjoint and conditional preference modelling," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 8(2), pages 103-116, March.
    5. S. Fanshel & J. W. Bush, 1970. "A Health-Status Index and its Application to Health-Services Outcomes," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 18(6), pages 1021-1066, December.
    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. Paul F M Krabbe, 2013. "A Generalized Measurement Model to Quantify Health: The Multi-Attribute Preference Response Model," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(11), pages 1-12, November.
    2. Alessandro Mengoni & Chiara Seghieri & Sabina Nuti, 2013. "The application of discrete choice experiments in health economics: a systematic review of the literature," Working Papers 201301, Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna of Pisa, Istituto di Management.
    3. John Brazier & Donna Rowen & Yaling Yang & Aki Tsuchiya, 2012. "Comparison of health state utility values derived using time trade-off, rank and discrete choice data anchored on the full health-dead scale," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 13(5), pages 575-587, October.
    4. Luciana Scalone & Peep Stalmeier & Silvano Milani & Paul Krabbe, 2015. "Values for health states with different life durations," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 16(9), pages 917-925, December.
    5. Seiritsu Ogura & Wataru Suzuki & Makoto Kawamura & Tamotsu Kadoda, 2006. "Conjoint Analysis to Estimate the Demand for Nicotine Replacement Therapy in Japan," NBER Chapters, in: Health Care Issues in the United States and Japan, pages 229-246, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    6. Spencer, Anne & Rivero-Arias, Oliver & Wong, Ruth & Tsuchiya, Aki & Bleichrodt, Han & Edwards, Rhiannon Tudor & Norman, Richard & Lloyd, Andrew & Clarke, Philip, 2022. "The QALY at 50: One story many voices," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 296(C).
    7. Brazier, J & Rowen, D & Yang, Y & Tsuchiya, A, 2009. "Using rank and discrete choice data to estimate health state utility values on the QALY scale," MPRA Paper 29891, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. Emily Lancsar & Jordan Louviere, 2008. "Conducting Discrete Choice Experiments to Inform Healthcare Decision Making," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 26(8), pages 661-677, August.
    9. Juan Ramos-Goñi & Oliver Rivero-Arias & María Errea & Elly Stolk & Michael Herdman & Juan Cabasés, 2013. "Dealing with the health state ‘dead’ when using discrete choice experiments to obtain values for EQ-5D-5L heath states," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 14(1), pages 33-42, July.
    10. Tappenden, P & Brazier, J & Ratcliffe, J, 2006. "Does the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence take account of factors such as uncertainty and equity as well as incremental cost-effectiveness in commissioning health care services? A," MPRA Paper 29772, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    11. Lancsar, Emily & Louviere, Jordan & Flynn, Terry, 2007. "Several methods to investigate relative attribute impact in stated preference experiments," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 64(8), pages 1738-1753, April.
    12. Coast, Joanna, 2018. "A history that goes hand in hand: Reflections on the development of health economics and the role played by Social Science & Medicine, 1967–2017," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 196(C), pages 227-232.
    13. Milton C. Weinstein, 1981. "Economic Assessments of Medical Practices and Technologies," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 1(4), pages 309-330, December.
    14. Maria Alessandra Antonelli & Giorgia Marini, 2023. "Good health with good institutions. An empirical analysis for italian regions," Public Finance Research Papers 61, Istituto di Economia e Finanza, DSGE, Sapienza University of Rome.
    15. Mooney, Gavin, 2005. "Communitarian claims and community capabilities: furthering priority setting?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 60(2), pages 247-255, January.
    16. Pope, Robin, 2004. "Biases from omitted risk effects in standard gamble utilities," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(4), pages 695-735, July.
    17. Kettlewell, Nathan & Walker, Matthew J. & Yoo, Hong Il, 2024. "Alternative Models of Preference Heterogeneity for Elicited Choice Probabilities," IZA Discussion Papers 16821, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    18. Mandy Ryan & Angela Bate, 2001. "Testing the assumptions of rationality, continuity and symmetry when applying discrete choice experiments in health care," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 8(1), pages 59-63.
    19. Brent Opmeer & Corianne Borgie & Ben Mol & Patrick Bossuyt, 2010. "Assessing Preferences Regarding Healthcare Interventions that Involve Non-Health Outcomes," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 3(1), pages 1-10, March.
    20. Kara Hanson & Barbara McPake & Pamela Nakamba & Luke Archard, 2005. "Preferences for hospital quality in Zambia: results from a discrete choice experiment," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(7), pages 687-701, July.

    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:39:y:2019:i:7:p:816-826. 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.