IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/patien/v12y2019i1d10.1007_s40271-018-0338-0.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Development of a Discrete-Choice Experiment (DCE) to Elicit Adolescent and Parent Preferences for Hypodontia Treatment

Author

Listed:
  • Sophy Barber

    (Leeds Dental Institute)

  • Hilary Bekker

    (Leeds Institute of Health Sciences)

  • Joachim Marti

    (Université de Lausanne-CHUV)

  • Sue Pavitt

    (School of Dentistry)

  • Balvinder Khambay

    (University of Birmingham)

  • David Meads

    (Leeds Institute of Health Sciences)

Abstract

Objective Our objective was to develop and test a discrete-choice experiment (DCE) survey to elicit adolescent and parent preferences for dental care for hypodontia (a developmental condition where one or more teeth fail to develop). Methods This was a mixed-methods study. Participants were adolescents (aged 12–16 years) with hypodontia and their parents and the dentists providing hypodontia care. Stage one entailed attribute development, as follows. (1) Attribute identification: systematic review of hypodontia literature; interviews with adolescents with hypodontia (n = 8) and parents (n = 8); observation of hypodontia clinical consultations (n = 5); environmental scan of hypodontia patient information resources (n = 30); and systematic analysis of social media posts (n = 176). (2) Attribute selection: stakeholder consultation to develop items for a questionnaire; rating and ranking questionnaire for adolescents with hypodontia and parents (n = 18); further stakeholder consultation. Stage two involved the development of the DCE survey, and stage three included the pre-testing using cognitive interviews with adolescents (n = 12) and parents (n = 8) to assess face and content validity. Results The attribute long list included 27 attributes focusing on service delivery and treatment outcome, from which seven ‘important’ attributes were selected for pre-testing. Cognitive interviewing suggested adolescents found the DCE choice tasks challenging to understand; the survey was modified to enhance its acceptability. One attribute was excluded as it showed poor validity with adolescents. Pre-testing suggested DCE choice tasks encouraged thinking and discussion about preferences for treatment. Conclusions Including the target respondent group in all stages of DCE development ensured the final DCE survey was valid and acceptable. DCE methods appear to be a useful tool for exploring joint decision making alongside conventional preference elicitation.

Suggested Citation

  • Sophy Barber & Hilary Bekker & Joachim Marti & Sue Pavitt & Balvinder Khambay & David Meads, 2019. "Development of a Discrete-Choice Experiment (DCE) to Elicit Adolescent and Parent Preferences for Hypodontia Treatment," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 12(1), pages 137-148, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:patien:v:12:y:2019:i:1:d:10.1007_s40271-018-0338-0
    DOI: 10.1007/s40271-018-0338-0
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40271-018-0338-0
    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/s40271-018-0338-0?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. Joanna Coast & Hareth Al‐Janabi & Eileen J. Sutton & Susan A. Horrocks & A. Jane Vosper & Dawn R. Swancutt & Terry N. Flynn, 2012. "Using qualitative methods for attribute development for discrete choice experiments: issues and recommendations," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(6), pages 730-741, June.
    2. Nesha Beharry-Borg & David Hensher & Riccardo Scarpa, 2009. "An Analytical Framework for Joint vs Separate Decisions by Couples in Choice Experiments: The Case of Coastal Water Quality in Tobago," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 43(1), pages 95-117, 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. Anna Nicolet & Clémence Perraudin & Joël Wagner & Ingrid Gilles & Nicolas Krucien & Isabelle Peytremann-Bridevaux & Joachim Marti, 2022. "Patient and Public Preferences for Coordinated Care in Switzerland: Development of a Discrete Choice Experiment," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 15(4), pages 485-496, July.
    2. Erping Jia & Yuanyuan Gu & Yingying Peng & Xianglin Li & Xiao Shen & Mingzhu Jiang & Juyang Xiong, 2020. "Preferences of Patients with Non-Communicable Diseases for Primary Healthcare Facilities: A Discrete Choice Experiment in Wuhan, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(11), pages 1-15, June.

    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. Nathalie Picard & Andre de Palma & Sophie Dantan, 2013. "Intra-Household Discrete Choice Models Of Mode Choice And Residential Location," Articles, International Journal of Transport Economics, vol. 40(3).
    2. Boto-García, David & Mariel, Petr & Baños-Pino, José Francisco, 2023. "Intra-household bargaining for a joint vacation," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 47(C).
    3. Jean Spinks & Son Nghiem & Joshua Byrnes, 2021. "Risky business, healthy lives: how risk perception, risk preferences and information influence consumer’s risky health choices," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 22(5), pages 811-831, July.
    4. Nikita Arora & Matthew Quaife & Kara Hanson & Mylene Lagarde & Dorka Woldesenbet & Abiy Seifu & Romain Crastes dit Sourd, 2022. "Discrete choice analysis of health worker job preferences in Ethiopia: Separating attribute non‐attendance from taste heterogeneity," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(5), pages 806-819, May.
    5. Sagebiel, Julian & Müller, Jakob R. & Rommel, Jens, 2013. "Are Consumers Willing to Pay More for Electricity from Cooperatives? Results from an Online Choice Experiment in Germany," MPRA Paper 52385, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. Halkos, George, 2011. "Economic valuation of coastal zone quality improvements," MPRA Paper 35395, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. André de Palma & Nathalie Picard & Ignacio Inoa, 2014. "Discrete choice decision-making with multiple decision-makers within the household," Chapters, in: Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly (ed.), Handbook of Choice Modelling, chapter 16, pages 363-382, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    8. Emma L Giles & Frauke Becker & Laura Ternent & Falko F Sniehotta & Elaine McColl & Jean Adams, 2016. "Acceptability of Financial Incentives for Health Behaviours: A Discrete Choice Experiment," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(6), pages 1-19, June.
    9. Mamine, Fateh & Fares, M'hand & Minviel, Jean Joseph, 2020. "Contract Design for Adoption of Agrienvironmental Practices: A Meta-analysis of Discrete Choice Experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    10. Thomas G. Poder & Nathalie Carrier & Mathieu Roy & Chantal Camden, 2020. "A Discrete Choice Experiment on Women’s Preferences for Water Immersion During Labor and Birth: Identification, Refinement and Selection of Attributes and Levels," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(6), pages 1-11, March.
    11. Morey, Edward & Thiene, Mara, 2012. "A parsimonious, stacked latent-class methodology for predicting behavioral heterogeneity in terms of life-constraint heterogeneity," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 130-144.
    12. Ahlheim, Michael & Schneider, Friedrich, 2013. "Considering household size in Contingent Valuation studies," FZID Discussion Papers 68-2013, University of Hohenheim, Center for Research on Innovation and Services (FZID).
    13. Wiebke Mohr & Anika Rädke & Adel Afi & Franka Mühlichen & Moritz Platen & Annelie Scharf & Bernhard Michalowsky & Wolfgang Hoffmann, 2022. "Development of a Quantitative Preference Instrument for Person-Centered Dementia Care—Stage 2: Insights from a Formative Qualitative Study to Design and Pretest a Dementia-Friendly Analytic Hierarchy ," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(14), pages 1-21, July.
    14. Carlsen, Benedicte & Hole, Arne Risa & Kolstad, Julie Riise & Norheim, Ole Frithjof, 2012. "When you can’t have the cake and eat it too," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 75(11), pages 1964-1973.
    15. André de Palma & Nathalie Picard & Robin Lindsey, 2024. "Activity and transportation decisions within households," Chapters, in: Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly (ed.), Handbook of Choice Modelling, chapter 16, pages 426-451, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    16. Plaxcedes Chiwire & Charlotte Beaudart & Silvia M. Evers & Hassan Mahomed & Mickaël Hiligsmann, 2022. "Enhancing Public Participation in Public Health Offerings: Patient Preferences for Facilities in the Western Cape Province Using a Discrete Choice Experiment," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(1), pages 1-26, January.
    17. Nathalie Picard & André de Palma & Ignacio Inoa, 2014. "Intra-household Decision Models of Residential and Job Location," Working Papers hal-00964351, HAL.
    18. Rachel Milte & Julie Ratcliffe & Gang Chen & Michelle Miller & Maria Crotty, 2018. "Taste, choice and timing: Investigating resident and carer preferences for meals in aged care homes," Nursing & Health Sciences, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(1), pages 116-124, March.
    19. Yan, Qianqian & Feng, Tao & Timmermans, Harry, 2023. "A model of household shared parking decisions incorporating equity-seeking household dynamics and leadership personality traits," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    20. Daniela Covino & Immacolata Viola & Tetiana Paientko & Flavio Boccia, 2021. "Neuromarketing: some remarks by an economic experiment on food consumer perception and ethic sustainability," RIVISTA DI STUDI SULLA SOSTENIBILITA', FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 0(1), pages 187-199.

    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:12:y:2019:i:1:d:10.1007_s40271-018-0338-0. 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.