IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/nbr/nberwo/17482.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Estimating Patients' Preferences for Medical Devices: Does the Number of Profile in Choice Experiments Matter?

Author

Listed:
  • John Bridges
  • Christine Buttorff
  • Karin Groothuis-Oudshoorn

Abstract

Background: Most applications of choice-based conjoint analysis in health use choice tasks with only two profiles, while those in marketing routinely use three or more. This study reports on a randomized trial comparing paired with triplet profile choice formats focused on measuring patient preference for hearing aids. Methods: Respondents with hearing loss were drawn from a nationally representative cohort, completed identical surveys incorporating a conjoint analysis, but were randomized to choice tasks with two or three profiles. Baseline differences between the two groups were explored using ANOVA and chi-square tests. The primary outcomes of differences in estimated preferences were explored using t-tests, likelihood ratio tests, and analysis of individual-level models estimated with ordinary least squares. Results: 500 respondents were recruited. 127 had no hearing loss, 28 had profound loss and 22 declined to participate and were not analyzed. Of the remaining 323 participants, 146 individuals were randomized to the pairs and 177 to triplets. The only significant difference between the groups was time to complete the survey (11.5 and 21 minutes respectively). Pairs and triplets produced identical rankings of attribute importance but homogeneity was rejected (P

Suggested Citation

  • John Bridges & Christine Buttorff & Karin Groothuis-Oudshoorn, 2011. "Estimating Patients' Preferences for Medical Devices: Does the Number of Profile in Choice Experiments Matter?," NBER Working Papers 17482, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    • Handle: RePEc:nbr:nberwo:17482
    Note: EH
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.nber.org/papers/w17482.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. 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.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
    • I11 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Analysis of Health Care Markets
    • I18 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Government Policy; Regulation; Public Health

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:nbr:nberwo:17482. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/nberrus.html .

    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.