IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/patien/v11y2018i4d10.1007_s40271-017-0296-y.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Systematic Review of Discrete-Choice Experiments and Conjoint Analysis Studies in People with Multiple Sclerosis

Author

Listed:
  • Edward J. D. Webb

    (University of Leeds)

  • David Meads

    (University of Leeds)

  • Ieva Eskyte

    (University of Leeds)

  • Natalie King

    (University of Leeds)

  • Naila Dracup

    (University of Leeds)

  • Jeremy Chataway

    (University College London)

  • Helen L. Ford

    (Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust)

  • Joachim Marti

    (Université de Lausanne)

  • Sue H. Pavitt

    (University of Leeds)

  • Klaus Schmierer

    (Queen Mary University of London
    The Royal London Hospital, Barts Health NHS Trust)

  • Ana Manzano

    (University of Leeds)

Abstract

Background Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a chronic disabling, inflammatory, and degenerative disease of the central nervous system that, in most cases, requires long-term disease-modifying treatment (DMT). The drugs used vary in efficacy and adverse effect profiles. Several studies have used attribute-based stated-preference methods, primarily to investigate patient preferences for initiating or escalating DMT. Objectives To conduct a systematic review of attribute-based stated-preference studies in people with MS to identify common methods employed and to assess study quality, with reference to the specific challenges of this disease area. Methods We conducted a systematic search for studies related to attribute-based stated-preference and MS in multiple databases, including Cochrane and MEDLINE. Studies were included if they were published in a peer-reviewed journal, were on the topic of MS, and used a survey methodology that measured stated preferences for attributes of a whole. Analysis was conducted using narrative synthesis and summary statistics. Study quality was judged against the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) conjoint analysis checklist. Results We identified 16 relevant articles reporting 17 separate studies, all but one focusing on DMTs. Most studies were discrete-choice experiments. Study quality was generally high, but we recommend the following: (1) that consideration of sample sizes be improved, (2) that survey design choices be justified and documented, (3) that qualitative approaches for attribute and level selection be incorporated to better involve patients, and (4) that reporting of experimental practice be improved. The effects of DMTs on reproduction and the impact of how risk and uncertainty are presented were identified as neglected research topics. The ISPOR conjoint analysis checklist was found to be unsuitable for the assessment of study quality. Conclusion Attribute-based stated preference is a useful method with which to examine the preferences of people with MS in their choice of DMT. However, further research embracing the methodological recommendations identified, particularly greater use of qualitative methods in attribute development, is needed.

Suggested Citation

  • Edward J. D. Webb & David Meads & Ieva Eskyte & Natalie King & Naila Dracup & Jeremy Chataway & Helen L. Ford & Joachim Marti & Sue H. Pavitt & Klaus Schmierer & Ana Manzano, 2018. "A Systematic Review of Discrete-Choice Experiments and Conjoint Analysis Studies in People with Multiple Sclerosis," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 11(4), pages 391-402, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:patien:v:11:y:2018:i:4:d:10.1007_s40271-017-0296-y
    DOI: 10.1007/s40271-017-0296-y
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40271-017-0296-y
    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/s40271-017-0296-y?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. repec:cup:judgdm:v:9:y:2014:i:1:p:1-14 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. repec:cup:cbooks:9780521747387 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Mark Harrison & Dan Rigby & Caroline Vass & Terry Flynn & Jordan Louviere & Katherine Payne, 2014. "Risk as an Attribute in Discrete Choice Experiments: A Systematic Review of the Literature," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 7(2), pages 151-170, June.
    4. repec:cup:cbooks:9780521766555 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Samanta Simioni & Myriam Schluep & Nadège Bault & Giorgio Coricelli & Joerg Kleeberg & Renaud A. Du Pasquier & Markus Gschwind & Patrik Vuilleumier & Jean-Marie Annoni, 2012. "Multiple sclerosis decreases explicit counterfactual processing and risk taking in decision making," Post-Print halshs-00941077, HAL.
    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. Basem Al-Omari & Joviana Farhat & Mujahed Shraim, 2023. "The Role of Web-Based Adaptive Choice-Based Conjoint Analysis Technology in Eliciting Patients’ Preferences for Osteoarthritis Treatment," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(4), pages 1-15, February.
    2. Sophi Tatlock & Kate Sully & Anjali Batish & Chelsea Finbow & William Neill & Carol Lines & Roisin Brennan & Nicholas Adlard & Tamara Backhouse, 2023. "Individual Differences in the Patient Experience of Relapsing Multiple Sclerosis (RMS): A Multi-Country Qualitative Exploration of Drivers of Treatment Preferences Among People Living with RMS," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 16(4), pages 345-357, July.
    3. Vikas Soekhai & Esther W. Bekker-Grob & Alan R. Ellis & Caroline M. Vass, 2019. "Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: Past, Present and Future," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 37(2), pages 201-226, February.

    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. Mahieu, Pierre-Alexandre & Andersson, Henrik & Beaumais, Olivier & Crastes dit Sourd, Romain & Hess, François-Charles & Wolff, François-Charles, 2017. "Stated preferences: a unique database composed of 1657 recent published articles in journals related to agriculture, environment, or health," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), vol. 98(3), November.
    2. Patricia Kenny & Stephen Goodall & Deborah J. Street & Jessica Greene, 2017. "Choosing a Doctor: Does Presentation Format Affect the Way Consumers Use Health Care Performance Information?," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 10(6), pages 739-751, December.
    3. Wolf Rogowski & Katherine Payne & Petra Schnell-Inderst & Andrea Manca & Ursula Rochau & Beate Jahn & Oguzhan Alagoz & Reiner Leidl & Uwe Siebert, 2015. "Concepts of ‘Personalization’ in Personalized Medicine: Implications for Economic Evaluation," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 33(1), pages 49-59, January.
    4. Nick Bansback & Mark Harrison & Carlo Marra, 2016. "Does Introducing Imprecision around Probabilities for Benefit and Harm Influence the Way People Value Treatments?," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 36(4), pages 490-502, May.
    5. John F. P. Bridges & Jui-Hua Tsai & Ellen Janssen & Norah L. Crossnohere & Ryan Fischer & Holly Peay, 2019. "How Do Members of the Duchenne and Becker Muscular Dystrophy Community Perceive a Discrete-Choice Experiment Incorporating Uncertain Treatment Benefit? An Application of Research as an Event," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 12(2), pages 247-257, April.
    6. Caroline Vass & Dan Rigby & Katherine Payne, 2019. "“I Was Trying to Do the Maths”: Exploring the Impact of Risk Communication in Discrete Choice Experiments," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 12(1), pages 113-123, February.
    7. Axel C. Mühlbacher & Andrew Sadler & Christin Juhnke, 2021. "Personalized diabetes management: what do patients with diabetes mellitus prefer? A discrete choice experiment," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 22(3), pages 425-443, April.
    8. Ellen M. Janssen & Jodi B. Segal & John F. P. Bridges, 2016. "A Framework for Instrument Development of a Choice Experiment: An Application to Type 2 Diabetes," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 9(5), pages 465-479, October.
    9. Bansal, Prateek & Kessels, Roselinde & Krueger, Rico & Graham, Daniel J., 2022. "Preferences for using the London Underground during the COVID-19 pandemic," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 160(C), pages 45-60.
    10. Verity Watson & Frauke Becker & Esther de Bekker‐Grob, 2017. "Discrete Choice Experiment Response Rates: A Meta‐analysis," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(6), pages 810-817, June.
    11. Maithili R. P. Singh & Jugal Kishor, 2018. "The Corporate Image As A Weapon In The Attraction Of Prospective Employe," Working papers 2018-28-13, Voice of Research.
    12. Souraya Sidani & Dana R. Epstein & Mary Fox & Joyal Miranda, 2018. "Psychometric Properties of the Treatment Perception and Preferences Measure," Clinical Nursing Research, , vol. 27(6), pages 743-761, July.
    13. Hangjian Wu & Emmanouil Mentzakis & Marije Schaafsma, 2022. "Exploring Different Assumptions about Outcome-Related Risk Perceptions in Discrete Choice Experiments," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 81(3), pages 531-572, March.
    14. Mesfin G. Genie & Mandy Ryan & Nicolas Krucien, 2023. "Keeping an eye on cost: What can eye tracking tell us about attention to cost information in discrete choice experiments?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 32(5), pages 1101-1119, May.
    15. Alison Pearce & Mark Harrison & Verity Watson & Deborah J. Street & Kirsten Howard & Nick Bansback & Stirling Bryan, 2021. "Respondent Understanding in Discrete Choice Experiments: A Scoping Review," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 14(1), pages 17-53, January.
    16. Michelle Queally & Edel Doherty & Francis Finucane & Ciaran O’Neill, 2020. "Preferences for Weight Loss Treatment Amongst Treatment-Seeking Patients with Severe Obesity: A Discrete Choice Experiment," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 18(5), pages 689-698, October.
    17. Sung Eun Choi & Seth A. Berkowitz & John S. Yudkin & Huseyin Naci & Sanjay Basu, 2019. "Personalizing Second-Line Type 2 Diabetes Treatment Selection: Combining Network Meta-analysis, Individualized Risk, and Patient Preferences for Unified Decision Support," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 39(3), pages 239-252, April.
    18. Jason J. Ong & Nyasule Neke & Mwita Wambura & Evodius Kuringe & Jonathan M. Grund & Marya Plotkin & Marc d’Elbée & Sergio Torres-Rueda & Hally R. Mahler & Helen A. Weiss & Fern Terris-Prestholt, 2019. "Use of Lotteries for the Promotion of Voluntary Medical Male Circumcision Service: A Discrete-Choice Experiment among Adult Men in Tanzania," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 39(4), pages 474-485, May.
    19. Robert J. Johnston & Kevin J. Boyle & Wiktor (Vic) Adamowicz & Jeff Bennett & Roy Brouwer & Trudy Ann Cameron & W. Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Riccardo Scarpa & Roger Tourangeau & Ch, 2017. "Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(2), pages 319-405.
    20. Stolk-Vos, Aline C. & Attema, Arthur E. & Manzulli, Michele & van de Klundert, Joris J., 2022. "Do patients and other stakeholders value health service quality equally? A prospect theory based choice experiment in cataract care," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 294(C).

    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:11:y:2018:i:4:d:10.1007_s40271-017-0296-y. 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.