Advertisement

Developing Attributes and Attribute-Levels for a Discrete-Choice Experiment: An Example for Interventions of Impulsive Violent Offenders

  • Stella Nalukwago SettumbaEmail author
  • Marian Shanahan
  • Tony Butler
  • Peter Schofield
  • Lise Lafferty
  • Paul Simpson
  • Georgina M. Chambers
Original Research Article

Abstract

Background

Discrete-Choice Experiments (DCEs) are used to assess the strength of preferences and value of interventions, but researchers using the method have been criticised for failing to either undertake or publish the rigorous research for selecting the necessary attributes and levels. The aim of this study was to elicit attributes to inform a DCE to assess societal and offenders’ preferences for, and value of, treatment of impulsive-violent offenders. In doing so, this paper thoroughly describes the process and methods used in developing the DCE attributes and levels.

Methods

Four techniques were used to derive the final list of attributes and levels: (1) a narrative literature review to derive conceptual attributes; (2) seven focus group discussions (FGDs) comprising 25 participants including offenders and the general public and one in-depth interview with an offender’s family member to generate contextual attributes; (3) priority-setting methods of voting and ranking to indicate participants’ attributes of preference; (4) a Delphi method consensus exercise with 13 experts from the justice health space to generate the final list of attributes.

Results

Following the literature review and qualitative data collection, 23 attributes were refined to eight using the Delphi method. These were: treatment effectiveness, location and continuity of treatment, treatment type, treatment provider, voluntary participation, flexibility of appointments, treatment of co-morbidities and cost.

Conclusion

Society and offenders identified similar characteristics of treatment programs as being important. The mixed methods approach described in this manuscript contributes to the existing limited methodological literature in DCE attribute development.

Notes

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge all focus group and in-depth interview participants (who chose anonymity), for their time and involvement in this study. We also acknowledge the following experts (listed are those that provided consent to be identified) in the justice and health space, who responded positively to an invitation to participate in the Delphi method process of this study: Forensic Psychiatrists: David Greenberg, Daria Korobanova; Criminologists: Melanie Simpson. Caitlin Hughes, Stacie Tzoumakis; Justice Health nurses: Noella Ellis, John Nguyen; Psychologists: Emma Barrett, Anindita Sudewo. We acknowledge the REINVESt study coordinator, Lee Knight, for his role in coordinating study participants for the FGDs and providing general guidance on the tools used and the conduct of the interviews.

Author Contribution

Stella, Marian, Georgina, Peter and Tony were involved in the design of the study, data analysis, and write up. Stella and Tony were involved in the recruitment of participants. Stella and Lise (with Lise taking lead in interviewing) were involved in the conducting of FGDs and interview and qualitative data analysis. Paul was involved in the analysis of FGDs. Paul and Stella were involved in the design, conduct and analysis of the Delphi method component (with Paul taking the lead in its conduct). All authors contributed majorly to the write up of the manuscript.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

This study was funded by Grants from the National Health and Medical Research Council, under the Centre of Research Excellence in Offender Health Australia [grant number RG124596]. It is part of the research done by the Justice and Health program, Kirby Institute.

The study received ethics approval from three committees: UNSW human research ethics committee, Corrective Services NSW human research ethics committee, and Aboriginal Health and Medical Research Council human research committee. All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Conflicts of Interest

All authors, that is Stella Nalukwago Settumba, Marian Shanahan, Tony Butler, Peter Schofield, Lise Lafferty, Paul Simpson and Georgina M. Chambers, have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Supplementary material

40258_2019_484_MOESM1_ESM.docx (39 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 38 kb)
40258_2019_484_MOESM2_ESM.docx (191 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (DOCX 190 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Australian Government Productivity Commission. Report on Government Services 2016. Australia: Canberra; 2016.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Settumba SN et al. Are we getting value for money from behavioral interventions for offenders? A research note reviewing the economic evaluation literature. American Journal of Criminal Justice. 2017.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cohen MA. The costs of crime and justice. New York: Routledge; 2005.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    de Bekker-Grob EW, Ryan M, Gerard K. Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature. Health Econ. 2012;21(2):145–72.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ryan M, Gerard K. Using discrete choice experiments to value health care programmes: current practice and future research reflections. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2003;2(1):55–64.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Clark M, et al. Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature. Pharmacoeconomics. 2014;32(9):883–902.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lancsar E, Louviere J. Conducting discrete choice experiments to inform healthcare decision making. Pharmacoeconomics. 2008;26(8):661–77.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lancaster KJ. A new approach to consumer theory. J Polit Econ. 1966;74(2):132–57.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    McFadden D. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. 1973.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Allen R. Global prison trends 2015. Penal Reform International, 2015.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rollings K. Counting the costs of crime in Australia: a 2005 update. 2008, Australian Institute of Criminology Canberra, ACT.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kockler TR, et al. Characterizing aggressive behavior in a forensic population. Am J Orthopsychiatry. 2006;76(1):80.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Stanford MS, et al. Characterizing aggressive behavior. Assessment. 2003;10(2):183–90.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Heilbrun AB. Psychopathy and violent crime. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1979;47(3):509.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Butler T, et al. Reducing impulsivity in repeat violent offenders: an open label trial of a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor. Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2010;44(12):1137–43.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Reed Johnson F, et al. Constructing experimental designs for discrete-choice experiments: report of the ispor conjoint analysis experimental design good research practices task force. Value Health. 2013;16(1):3–13.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Coast J, et al. Using qualitative methods for attribute development for discrete choice experiments: issues and recommendations. Health Econ. 2012;21(6):730–41.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Coast J, Horrocks S. Developing attributes and levels for discrete choice experiments using qualitative methods. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2007;12(1):25–30.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Andrews DA, Bonta J, Wormith JS. The risk-need-responsivity (RNR) model: does adding the good lives model contribute to effective crime prevention? Crim Justice Behav. 2011;38(7):735–55.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Andrews DA, Bonta J, Hoge RD. Classification for effective rehabilitation: rediscovering psychology. Crim Justice Behav. 1990;17(1):19–52.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Pinals DA. Crime, violence, and behavioral health: collaborative community strategies for risk mitigation. CNS Spect. 2015;20(Special Issue 03):241–9.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Andrews DA, Bonta J. Rehabilitating criminal justice policy and practice. Psychol, Publ Policy, Law. 2010;16(1):39.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Offender Management & Programs Division Corrective Services New South Wales, Compendium of Offender Behaviour Change Programs in New South Wales, D.o. Justice, Editor. 2016.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lowenkamp CT, Latessa EJ, Holsinger AM. The risk principle in action: what have we learned from 13,676 offenders and 97 correctional programs? Crime Delinq. 2006;52(1):77–93.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Landenberger NA, Lipsey MW. The positive effects of cognitive-behavioral programs for offenders: a meta-analysis of factors associated with effective treatment. J Exp Criminol. 2005;1(4):451–76.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Levenson JS, et al. Perceptions of sex offenders about treatment: satisfaction and engagement in group therapy. Sex Abuse: J Res Treat. 2009;21(1):35–56.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Levenson JS, Prescott DS, D’Amora DA. Sex offender treatment: consumer satisfaction and engagement in therapy. Int J Off Ther Comp Criminol. 2010;54(3):307–26.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Limbos MA, et al. Effectiveness of interventions to prevent youth violence: a systematic review. Am J Prevent Med. 2007;33(1):65–74.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Dvoskin JA. Using social science to reduce violent offending. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2012.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Paschall MJ, Fishbein DH. Executive cognitive functioning and aggression: a public health perspective. Aggress Viol Behav. 2002;7(3):215–35.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Dowden C, Andrews DA. Effective correctional treatment and violent reoffending: a meta-analysis. Can J Criminol. 2000;42:449.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    New AS, et al. Fluoxetine increases relative metabolic rate in prefrontal cortex in impulsive aggression. Psychopharmacology. 2004;176(3–4):451–8.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Kolla N, et al. Decreased brain monoamine oxidase a distribution volume in impulsive, violent offenders with antisocial personality disorder: an [11C] harmine positron emission tomography study. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2014;39:S200–1.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Stetler DA, et al. Association of low-activity MAOA allelic variants with violent crime in incarcerated offenders. J Psychiatr Res. 2014;58:69–75.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Andrews, D.A. and J. Bonta, The psychology of criminal conduct. 2010: Routledge.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Dowden C, Andrews DA. The importance of staff practice in delivering effective correctional treatment: a meta-analytic review of core correctional practice. Int J Off Ther Comp Criminol. 2004;48(2):203–14.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    MacInnes D, et al. A cross sectional survey examining the association between therapeutic relationships and service user satisfaction in forensic mental health settings. BMC Res Notes. 2014;7:657.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Simpson PL, et al. Assessing the public’s views on prison and prison alternatives: findings from public deliberation research in three Australian Cities. J Publ Delib. 2015;11(2):1.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Lipsey MW, Wilson DB. Effective intervention for serious juvenile offenders: a synthesis of research. 1998.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Parhar KK, et al. Offender coercion in treatment a meta-analysis of effectiveness. Crim Justice Behav. 2008;35(9):1109–35.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Mullen P, Spurgeon P. Priority setting and the public. 2000.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Alexander J, Kroposki M. Outcomes for community health nursing practice. J Nurs Adm. 1999;29(5):49–56.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Green B, et al. Applying the Delphi technique in a study of GPs’ information requirements. Health Soc Care Commun. 1999;7(3):198–205.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Snow J, Mann M. Qualtrics survey software: handbook for research professionals. Qualtrics Labs, Inc, 2013.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Vass C, Rigby D, Payne K. The role of qualitative research methods in discrete choice experiments: a systematic review and survey of authors. Med Decis Making. 2017;37(3):298–313.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Virkkunen M, et al. Personality profiles and state aggressiveness in Finnish alcoholic, violent offenders, fire setters, and healthy volunteers. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1994;51(1):28–33.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Gorman-Smith D, et al. The relation of family functioning to violence among inner-city minority youths. J Fam Psychol. 1996;10(2):115.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The Kirby InstituteUniversity of New South Wales SydneyKensington, SydneyAustralia
  2. 2.National Drug and Alcohol Research CentreUniversity of New South Wales SydneyRandwick, SydneyAustralia
  3. 3.School of Medicine and Public HealthUniversity of NewcastleCallaghanAustralia
  4. 4.National Perinatal Epidemiology and Statistics Unit, Centre for Big Data Research in Health, School of Women’s and Children’sHealth University of New South Wales SydneyRandwick, SydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations