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. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521747387, September.
    2. repec:cup:judgdm:v:9:y:2014:i:1:p:1-14 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. 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. 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.
    2. Zhifeng Gao & Ted C. Schroeder, 2009. "Consumer responses to new food quality information: are some consumers more sensitive than others?," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 40(3), pages 339-346, May.
    3. Cheng, Leilei & Yin, Changbin & Chien, Hsiaoping, 2015. "Demand for milk quantity and safety in urban China: evidence from Beijing and Harbin," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 59(2), April.
    4. Wen, Chieh-Hua & Huang, Chia-Jung & Fu, Chiang, 2020. "Incorporating continuous representation of preferences for flight departure times into stated itinerary choice modeling," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 10-20.
    5. Johannes Buggle & Thierry Mayer & Seyhun Orcan Sakalli & Mathias Thoenig, 2023. "The Refugee’s Dilemma: Evidence from Jewish Migration out of Nazi Germany," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 138(2), pages 1273-1345.
    6. Christelis, Dimitris & Dobrescu, Loretti I. & Motta, Alberto, 2020. "Early life conditions and financial risk-taking in older age," The Journal of the Economics of Ageing, Elsevier, vol. 17(C).
    7. Ortega, David L. & Wang, H. Holly & Wu, Laping & Hong, Soo Jeong, 2015. "Retail channel and consumer demand for food quality in China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 359-366.
    8. Tina Birgitte Hansen & Jes Sanddal Lindholt & Axel Diederichsen & Rikke Søgaard, 2019. "Do Non-participants at Screening have a Different Threshold for an Acceptable Benefit–Harm Ratio than Participants? Results of a Discrete Choice Experiment," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 12(5), pages 491-501, October.
    9. Doyle, Orla & Fidrmuc, Jan, 2006. "Who favors enlargement?: Determinants of support for EU membership in the candidate countries' referenda," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 22(2), pages 520-543, June.
    10. Tovar, Jorge, 2012. "Consumers’ Welfare and Trade Liberalization: Evidence from the Car Industry in Colombia," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 40(4), pages 808-820.
    11. Pereira, Pedro & Ribeiro, Tiago, 2011. "The impact on broadband access to the Internet of the dual ownership of telephone and cable networks," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 283-293, March.
    12. Yamada, Katsunori & Sato, Masayuki, 2013. "Another avenue for anatomy of income comparisons: Evidence from hypothetical choice experiments," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 35-57.
    13. Potoglou, Dimitris & Palacios, Juan & Feijoo, Claudio & Gómez Barroso, Jose-Luis, 2015. "The supply of personal information: A study on the determinants of information provision in e-commerce scenarios," 26th European Regional ITS Conference, Madrid 2015 127174, International Telecommunications Society (ITS).
    14. Sant'Anna, Ana Claudia & Bergtold, Jason & Shanoyan, Aleksan & Caldas, Marcellus & Granco, Gabriel, 2021. "Deal or No Deal? Analysis of Bioenergy Feedstock Contract Choice with Multiple Opt-out Options and Contract Attribute Substitutability," 2021 Conference, August 17-31, 2021, Virtual 315289, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    15. Mark Morrison & Craig Nalder, 2009. "Willingness to Pay for Improved Quality of Electricity Supply Across Business Type and Location," The Energy Journal, , vol. 30(2), pages 117-134, April.
    16. Simon P. Anderson & André de Palma, 2012. "Competition for attention in the Information (overload) Age," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 43(1), pages 1-25, March.
    17. Mtimet, Nadhem & Ujiie, Kiyokazu & Kashiwagi, Kenichi & Zaibet, Lokman & Nagaki, Masakazu, 2011. "The effects of Information and Country of Origin on Japanese Olive Oil Consumer Selection," 2011 International Congress, August 30-September 2, 2011, Zurich, Switzerland 114642, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    18. Chavez, Daniel E. & Palma, Marco A. & Nayga, Rodolfo M. & Mjelde, James W., 2020. "Product availability in discrete choice experiments with private goods," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 36(C).
    19. Boyce, Christopher & Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Hanley, Nick, 2019. "Personality and economic choices," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 82-100.
    20. Choi, Andy S., 2013. "Nonmarket values of major resources in the Korean DMZ areas: A test of distance decay," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 97-107.

    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.