Conjoint Analysis Versus Rating and Ranking for Values Elicitation and Clarification in Colorectal Cancer Screening
- 424 Downloads
To compare two techniques for eliciting and clarifying patient values for decision making about colorectal cancer (CRC) screening: choice-based conjoint analysis and a rating and ranking task.
Using our decision lab registry and university e-mail lists, we recruited average risk adults ages 48–75 for a written, mailed survey. Eligible participants were given basic information about CRC screening and six attributes of CRC screening tests, then randomized to complete either a choice-based conjoint analysis with 16 discrete choice tasks or a rating and ranking task. The main outcome was the most important attribute, as determined from conjoint analysis or participant ranking. Conjoint analysis-based most important attribute was determined from individual patient-level utilities generated using multinomial logistic regression and hierarchical Bayesian modeling.
Of the 114 eligible participants, 104 completed and returned questionnaires. Mean age was 57 (range 48–73), 70% were female, 88% were white, 71% were college graduates, and 62% were up to date with CRC screening. Ability to reduce CRC incidence and mortality was the most frequent most important attribute for both the conjoint analysis (56% of respondents) and rating/ranking (76% of respondents) groups, and these proportions differed significantly between groups (absolute difference 20%, 95% CI 3%, 37%, p =0.03). There were no significant differences between groups in proportion with clear values (p = 0.352), intent to be screened (p = 0.226) or unlabelled test preference (p = 0.521)
Choice-based conjoint analysis produced somewhat different patterns of attribute importance than a rating and ranking task, but had little effect on other outcomes.
KEY WORDScolorectal cancer (CRC) screening conjoint analysis rating/ranking preferences
- 2.Sheridan SL, Harris RP, Woolf SH. Shared Decision-Making Workgroup of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Shared decision making about screening and chemoprevention. A suggested approach from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Am J Prev Med. 2004;26(1):56–66. PMID 14700714.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 3.O’Connor AM, Bennett CL, Stacey D, Barry M, Col NF, Eden KB, et al. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009;8(3):CD001431. Review PMID: 19588325.Google Scholar
- 6.O’Connor AM, Bennett C, Stacey D, Barry MJ, Col NF, Eden KB, et al. Do patient decision aids meet effectiveness criteria of the international patient decision aid standards collaboration? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Med Decis Mak. 2007;27(5):554–74. Epub 2007 Sep 14. Review PMID: 17873255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 12.Griffith JM, Lewis CL, Hawley S, Sheridan SL, Pignone MP. Randomized trial of presenting absolute v. relative risk reduction in the elicitation of patient values for heart disease prevention with conjoint analysis. Med Decis Mak. 2009;29(2):167–74. Epub 2009 Mar 11.PMID: 19279298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 19.Johnson RM, Orme BK. how many questions should you ask in choice-based conjoint studies? Sawtooth software research paper series 1996.Google Scholar
- 20.Barratt A, Howard K, Irwig L, Salkeld G, Houssami N. Model of outcomes of screening mammography: information to support informed choices. BMJ. 2005;23(330):7497–936. Epub 2005 Mar 8.PMID: 15755755.Google Scholar
- 21.Johnson R. Monotonicity constraints in choice-based conjoint with hierarchical Bayes Sawtooth software technical paper series 2000, available at www.sawtoothsoftware.com.
- 22.Bryan Orme, John Howell. Application of covariates within Sawtooth software’s CBC/HB program: theory and practical example. Sawtooth software technical paper series 2009, available at www.sawtoothsoftware.com.
- 23.Huber J. Achieving individual-level predictions from CBC data: comparing ICE and hierarchical bayes. Sawtooth technical paper series 1998, available at www.sawtoothsoftware.com.
- 24.Sheridan SL, Golin C, Harris RP, Driscoll D, Deal AM, Enemchukwu E, et al. A pilot randomized trial of two types of values clarification exercises to facilitate informed decision making for prostate cancer screening. Society of general internal medicine meeting (poster). Pittsburgh, PA. April 2008.Google Scholar
- 29.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Vital signs: colorectal cancer screening among adults aged 50–75 years - United States, 2008. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2010;59(26):808–12. PubMed PMID: 20613704.Google Scholar