IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v44y2024i2p203-216.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparing Discrete Choice Experiment with Swing Weighting to Estimate Attribute Relative Importance: A Case Study in Lung Cancer Patient Preferences

Author

Listed:
  • J. Veldwijk

    (Erasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
    Erasmus Choice Modelling Centre, Erasmus University, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
    Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Julius Centrum, Utrecht, the Netherlands)

  • I. P. Smith

    (Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Julius Centrum, Utrecht, the Netherlands)

  • S. Oliveri

    (Applied Research Division for Cognitive and Psychological Science, IEO, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy)

  • S. Petrocchi

    (Applied Research Division for Cognitive and Psychological Science, IEO, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy)

  • M. Y. Smith

    (Alexion AstraZeneca Rare Disease, Boston, MA, USA
    Department of Regulatory and Quality Sciences, School of Pharmacy, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA)

  • L. Lanzoni

    (Applied Research Division for Cognitive and Psychological Science, IEO, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy)

  • R. Janssens

    (Department of Pharmaceutical and Pharmacological Sciences, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium)

  • I. Huys

    (Department of Pharmaceutical and Pharmacological Sciences, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium)

  • G. A. de Wit

    (Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Julius Centrum, Utrecht, the Netherlands
    Department of Health Sciences, Faculty of Science, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam & Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands)

  • C. G. M Groothuis-Oudshoorn

    (Health Technology and Services Research (HTSR), Faculty of Behavioural Management and Social Sciences, University of Twente, Enschede, the Netherlands)

Abstract

Introduction Discrete choice experiments (DCE) are commonly used to elicit patient preferences and to determine the relative importance of attributes but can be complex and costly to administer. Simpler methods that measure relative importance exist, such as swing weighting with direct rating (SW-DR), but there is little empirical evidence comparing the two. This study aimed to directly compare attribute relative importance rankings and weights elicited using a DCE and SW-DR. Methods A total of 307 patients with non–small-cell lung cancer in Italy and Belgium completed an online survey assessing preferences for cancer treatment using DCE and SW-DR. The relative importance of the attributes was determined using a random parameter logit model for the DCE and rank order centroid method (ROC) for SW-DR. Differences in relative importance ranking and weights between the methods were assessed using Cohen’s weighted kappa and Dirichlet regression. Feedback on ease of understanding and answering the 2 tasks was also collected. Results Most respondents (>65%) found both tasks (very) easy to understand and answer. The same attribute, survival, was ranked most important irrespective of the methods applied. The overall ranking of the attributes on an aggregate level differed significantly between DCE and SW-ROC ( P  

Suggested Citation

  • J. Veldwijk & I. P. Smith & S. Oliveri & S. Petrocchi & M. Y. Smith & L. Lanzoni & R. Janssens & I. Huys & G. A. de Wit & C. G. M Groothuis-Oudshoorn, 2024. "Comparing Discrete Choice Experiment with Swing Weighting to Estimate Attribute Relative Importance: A Case Study in Lung Cancer Patient Preferences," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 44(2), pages 203-216, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:44:y:2024:i:2:p:203-216
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X231222421
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X231222421
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X231222421?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. Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Rose, John M. & Hensher, David A., 2009. "Efficient stated choice experiments for estimating nested logit models," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 43(1), pages 19-35, January.
    2. Keeney,Ralph L. & Raiffa,Howard, 1993. "Decisions with Multiple Objectives," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521438834, October.
    3. Gueorguieva, Ralitza & Rosenheck, Robert & Zelterman, Daniel, 2008. "Dirichlet component regression and its applications to psychiatric data," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 52(12), pages 5344-5355, August.
    4. Daniel McFadden, 1986. "The Choice Theory Approach to Market Research," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 5(4), pages 275-297.
    5. Dennis Fok & Richard Paap & Bram Van Dijk, 2012. "A Rank‐Ordered Logit Model With Unobserved Heterogeneity In Ranking Capabilities," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(5), pages 831-846, August.
    6. Silvia Ferrari & Francisco Cribari-Neto, 2004. "Beta Regression for Modelling Rates and Proportions," Journal of Applied Statistics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 31(7), pages 799-815.
    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. Melo, Tatiane F.N. & Vasconcellos, Klaus L.P. & Lemonte, Artur J., 2009. "Some restriction tests in a new class of regression models for proportions," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 53(12), pages 3972-3979, October.
    2. Gerrit Antonides & Lies Hovestadt, 2021. "Product Attributes, Evaluability, and Consumer Satisfaction," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(22), pages 1-20, November.
    3. Yan, Jin & Yoo, Hong Il, 2019. "Semiparametric estimation of the random utility model with rank-ordered choice data," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 211(2), pages 414-438.
    4. Wang, Juite & Lai, Jung-Yu & Chang, Chih-Hsin, 2016. "Modeling and analysis for mobile application services: The perspective of mobile network operators," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 146-163.
    5. José L. Oviedo & Hong Il Yoo, 2017. "A Latent Class Nested Logit Model for Rank-Ordered Data with Application to Cork Oak Reforestation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 68(4), pages 1021-1051, December.
    6. Lance W. Saunders & J. Paul Brooks & Jason R. W. Merrick & Chad W. Autry, 2020. "Addressing Economic/Environmental Sustainability Trade‐offs in Procurement Episodes with Industrial Suppliers," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 29(5), pages 1256-1269, May.
    7. Vredin Johansson, Maria & Heldt, Tobias & Johansson, Per, 2006. "The effects of attitudes and personality traits on mode choice," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 40(6), pages 507-525, July.
    8. KARRI PASANEN & MIKKO KURTTILA & JOUNI PYKÄlÄINEN & JYRKI KANGAS & PEKKA LESKINEN, 2005. "Mesta — Non-Industrial Private Forest Owners' Decision-Support Environment For The Evaluation Of Alternative Forest Plans Over The Internet," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 4(04), pages 601-620.
    9. van Cranenburgh, Sander & Bliemer, Michiel C.J., 2019. "Information theoretic-based sampling of observations," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 31(C), pages 181-197.
    10. Karing’u kelvin Njuguna & Hezron Nyarindo Isaboke & Samuel Njiri Ndirangu, 2022. "Determinants of smallholders’ choice of avocado marketing outlets and profitability in Murang’a County, Kenya," SN Business & Economics, Springer, vol. 2(8), pages 1-25, August.
    11. Domenico Piccolo & Rosaria Simone, 2019. "The class of cub models: statistical foundations, inferential issues and empirical evidence," Statistical Methods & Applications, Springer;Società Italiana di Statistica, vol. 28(3), pages 389-435, September.
    12. Gerd Gigerenzer, 1997. "Bounded Rationality: Models of Fast and Frugal Inference," Swiss Journal of Economics and Statistics (SJES), Swiss Society of Economics and Statistics (SSES), vol. 133(II), pages 201-218, June.
    13. Shuang Liu & Kirsten Maclean & Cathy Robinson, 2019. "A cost-effective framework to prioritise stakeholder participation options," EURO Journal on Decision Processes, Springer;EURO - The Association of European Operational Research Societies, vol. 7(3), pages 221-241, November.
    14. Greg Lewis & Bora Ozaltun & Georgios Zervas, 2021. "Maximum Likelihood Estimation of Differentiated Products Demand Systems," Papers 2111.12397, arXiv.org.
    15. Yayan Hernuryadin & Koji Kotani & Tatsuyoshi Saijo, 2020. "Time Preferences of Food Producers: Does “Cultivate and Grow” Matter?," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 96(1), pages 132-148.
    16. Mhamed Ben Salah & Cédric Chambru & Maleke Fourati, 2022. "The colonial legacy of education: evidence from of Tunisia," ECON - Working Papers 411, Department of Economics - University of Zurich, revised Sep 2024.
    17. Smith, Chris M. & Shaw, Duncan, 2019. "The characteristics of problem structuring methods: A literature review," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 274(2), pages 403-416.
    18. 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.
    19. Ting Li & Robert J. Kauffman & Eric van Heck & Peter Vervest & Benedict G. C. Dellaert, 2014. "Consumer Informedness and Firm Information Strategy," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 25(2), pages 345-363, June.
    20. Ameztegui, Aitor & Coll, Lluís & Messier, Christian, 2015. "Modelling the effect of climate-induced changes in recruitment and juvenile growth on mixed-forest dynamics: The case of montane–subalpine Pyrenean ecotones," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 313(C), pages 84-93.

    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:44:y:2024:i:2:p:203-216. 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.