IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/patien/v3y2010i4p217-227.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Patient Preferences and Linear Scoring Rules for Patient-Reported Outcomes

Author

Listed:
  • Ateesha Mohamed
  • A. Brett Hauber
  • F. Johnson
  • Cheryl Coon

Abstract

Background: Many patient-reported outcomes (PRO) instruments are scored by averaging or summing Likert category values over all items or domains of the elicitation instrument, yielding domain-specific scores or a total score for the entire instrument. Objective: To evaluate differences between conventional linear and preference-weighted scores for PRO instruments used in asthma, oncology, and obesity. Methods: We estimated preference-weighted scores for all the items and response categories in the Onset-of-Effect Questionnaire (OEQ), the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ)-C30, and the Impact of Weight on Quality of Life Questionnaire-Lite version (IWQOL-Lite) using choice-format conjoint analysis, known also as discrete-choice experiments. Results: Conventional linear scoring rules can overstate the relative importance to patients of improvements in some domains and understate the relative importance of improvements in other domains. Conclusions: Patient preference-weighted scores estimated by conjoint-analysis methods allow for non-linearities and account for the relative contribution of individual items and domains to patient well-being. Conventional linear scores and preference-weighted scores can result in different conclusions about the size of patient-reported treatment effects. Copyright Adis Data Information BV 2010

Suggested Citation

  • Ateesha Mohamed & A. Brett Hauber & F. Johnson & Cheryl Coon, 2010. "Patient Preferences and Linear Scoring Rules for Patient-Reported Outcomes," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 3(4), pages 217-227, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:patien:v:3:y:2010:i:4:p:217-227
    DOI: 10.2165/11537880-000000000-00000
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.2165/11537880-000000000-00000
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.2165/11537880-000000000-00000?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. Louviere,Jordan J. & Hensher,David A. & Swait,Joffre D., 2000. "Stated Choice Methods," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521788304, September.
    2. John Bridges & Elizabeth Kinter & Lillian Kidane & Rebekah Heinzen & Colleen McCormick, 2008. "Things are Looking up Since We Started Listening to Patients," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 1(4), pages 273-282, October.
    3. Mandy Ryan & Emma McIntosh & Phil Shackley, 1998. "Methodological issues in the application of conjoint analysis in health care," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 7(4), pages 373-378, June.
    4. Stirling Bryan & Martin Buxton & Robert Sheldon & Alison Grant, 1998. "Magnetic resonance imaging for the investigation of knee injuries: an investigation of preferences," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 7(7), pages 595-603, November.
    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. Ateesha Mohamed & A. Hauber & Maureen Neary, 2011. "Patient Benefit-Risk Preferences for Targeted Agents in the Treatment of Renal Cell Carcinoma," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 29(11), pages 977-988, November.
    2. Neuman, Tzahi & Neuman, Einat & Neuman, Shoshana, 2010. "Explorations of the effect of experience on preferences for a health-care service," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 407-419, June.
    3. 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.
    4. Joachim Marti, 2012. "Assessing preferences for improved smoking cessation medications: a discrete choice experiment," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 13(5), pages 533-548, October.
    5. del Saz Salazar, Salvador & Hernandez Sancho, Francesc & Sala Garrido, Ramon, 2009. "Estimación del valor económico de la calidad del agua de un río mediante una doble aproximación: una aplicación de los principios económicos de la Directiva Marco del Agua," Economia Agraria y Recursos Naturales, Spanish Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 9(01), pages 1-27.
    6. Emma McIntosh, 2006. "Using Discrete Choice Experiments within a Cost-Benefit Analysis Framework," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 24(9), pages 855-868, September.
    7. Andrew J Lloyd, 2003. "Threats to the estimation of benefit: are preference elicitation methods accurate?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(5), pages 393-402, May.
    8. Tara Maddala & Kathryn A. Phillips & F. Reed Johnson, 2003. "An experiment on simplifying conjoint analysis designs for measuring preferences," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(12), pages 1035-1047, December.
    9. Milena Pavlova & Wim Groot & Godefridus Merode, 2005. "An Application of Rating Conjoint Analysis to Study the Importance of Quality-, Access- and Price-attributes to Health Care Consumers," Economic Change and Restructuring, Springer, vol. 37(3), pages 267-286, September.
    10. 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.
    11. Elizabeth Kinter & Thomas Prior & Christopher Carswell & John Bridges, 2012. "A Comparison of Two Experimental Design Approaches in Applying Conjoint Analysis in Patient-Centered Outcomes Research," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 5(4), pages 279-294, December.
    12. Brouwer, Roy & Bateman, Ian J., 2005. "Benefits transfer of willingness to pay estimates and functions for health-risk reductions: a cross-country study," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 24(3), pages 591-611, May.
    13. 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.
    14. Diego Ossa & Andrew Briggs & Emma McIntosh & Warren Cowell & Tim Littlewood & Mark Sculpher, 2007. "Recombinant Erythropoietin for Chemotherapy-Related Anaemia," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 25(3), pages 223-237, March.
    15. repec:cup:judgdm:v:3:y:2008:i::p:162-173 is not listed on IDEAS
    16. 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.
    17. Axel Mühlbacher & Uwe Junker & Christin Juhnke & Edgar Stemmler & Thomas Kohlmann & Friedhelm Leverkus & Matthias Nübling, 2015. "Chronic pain patients’ treatment preferences: a discrete-choice experiment," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 16(6), pages 613-628, July.
    18. Deborah Marshall & John Bridges & Brett Hauber & Ruthanne Cameron & Lauren Donnalley & Ken Fyie & F. Reed Johnson, 2010. "Conjoint Analysis Applications in Health — How are Studies being Designed and Reported?," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 3(4), pages 249-256, December.
    19. Emily Lancsar & Jordan Louviere, 2006. "Deleting ‘irrational’ responses from discrete choice experiments: a case of investigating or imposing preferences?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(8), pages 797-811, August.
    20. Deborah A. Marshall & F. Reed Johnson & Nathalie A. Kulin & Semra Özdemir & Judith M. E. Walsh & John K. Marshall & Stephanie Van Bebber & Kathryn A. Phillips, 2009. "How do physician assessments of patient preferences for colorectal cancer screening tests differ from actual preferences? A comparison in Canada and the United States using a stated‐choice survey," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(12), pages 1420-1439, December.
    21. Mickael Bech & Trine Kjaer & Jørgen Lauridsen, 2011. "Does the number of choice sets matter? Results from a web survey applying a discrete choice experiment," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(3), pages 273-286, March.

    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:3:y:2010:i:4:p:217-227. 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.