Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Discrete choice experiments of pharmacy services: a systematic review

  • Commentary
  • Published:
International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background Two previous systematic reviews have summarised the application of discrete choice experiments to value preferences for pharmacy services. These reviews identified a total of twelve studies and described how discrete choice experiments have been used to value pharmacy services but did not describe or discuss the application of methods used in the design or analysis. Aims (1) To update the most recent systematic review and critically appraise current discrete choice experiments of pharmacy services in line with published reporting criteria and; (2) To provide an overview of key methodological developments in the design and analysis of discrete choice experiments. Methods The review used a comprehensive strategy to identify eligible studies (published between 1990 and 2015) by searching electronic databases for key terms related to discrete choice and best–worst scaling (BWS) experiments. All healthcare choice experiments were then hand-searched for key terms relating to pharmacy. Data were extracted using a published checklist. Results A total of 17 discrete choice experiments eliciting preferences for pharmacy services were identified for inclusion in the review. No BWS studies were identified. The studies elicited preferences from a variety of populations (pharmacists, patients, students) for a range of pharmacy services. Most studies were from a United Kingdom setting, although examples from Europe, Australia and North America were also identified. Discrete choice experiments for pharmacy services tended to include more attributes than non-pharmacy choice experiments. Few studies reported the use of qualitative research methods in the design and interpretation of the experiments (n = 9) or use of new methods of analysis to identify and quantify preference and scale heterogeneity (n = 4). No studies reported the use of Bayesian methods in their experimental design. Conclusion Incorporating more sophisticated methods in the design of pharmacy-related discrete choice experiments could help researchers produce more efficient experiments which are better suited to valuing complex pharmacy services. Pharmacy-related discrete choice experiments could also benefit from more sophisticated analytical techniques such as investigations into scale and preference heterogeneity. Employing these sophisticated methods for both design and analysis could extend the usefulness of discrete choice experiments to inform health and pharmacy policy.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

References

  1. Moullin JC, Sabater-Hernández D, Fernandez-Llimos F, Benrimoj SI. Defining professional pharmacy services in community pharmacy. Res Soc Adm Pharm. 2013;9(6):989–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Rutter P, Hunt A, Jones I. Exploring the gap: community pharmacists’ perceptions of their current role compared with their aspirations. Int J Pharm Pract. 2000;8(3):204–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Doucette W, Kreling D, Schommer J, Gaither C, Mott D, Pedersen C. Evaluation of community pharmacy service mix: evidence from the 2004 National Pharmacist Workforce Study. J Am Pharm Assoc. 2006;46(3):348–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Cutler S, Fattah L, Shaw M, Cutts C. What does medicines optimisation mean for pharmacy professionals? Pharm J. 2011;287(7680):606.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Kaboli P, Hoth A, McClimon B, Schnipper J. Clinical pharmacists and inpatient medical care: a systematic review. Arch Intern Med. 2006;166(9):955–64.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Lutz E, Rovers J, Mattingly J, Reed B. Pharmacy practice around the world. J Am Pharm Assoc. 2009;49(1):4–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Ryan M. Discrete choice experiments in health care. BMJ. 2004;328(7436):360–1.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Perepelkin J. Public opinion of pharmacists and pharmacist prescribing. Can J Surg. 2011;144(2):86–93.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Tootelian D, Rolston L, Negrete M. Consumer receptiveness to non-traditional roles for community pharmacists. Health Mark Q. 2006;23(1):43–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Naik Panvelkar P, Armour C, Saini B. Community pharmacy-based asthma services—What do patients prefer? J Asthma. 2010;47(10):1085–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Louviere J, Flynn T, Carson RT. Discrete choice experiments are not conjoint analysis. J Choice Model. 2010;3(3):57–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Ryan M, Gerard K. Using discrete choice experiments in health economics: moving forward. In: Scott A, Maynard A, Elliott R, editors. Advances in health economics. Chichester: Wiley; 2003. p. 25–40.

  13. Thurstone L. A law of comparative judgment. Psychol Rev. 1927;34(4):273–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Lancaster KJ. A new approach to consumer theory. J Polit Econ. 1966;74(2):132–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. McIntosh E. Using discrete choice experiments within a cost-benefit analysis framework: some considerations. Pharmacoeconomics. 2006;24(9):855–68.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Flynn TT, Louviere J, Peters TT, Coast J. Best–worst scaling: what it can do for health care research and how to do it. J Health Econ. 2007;26(1):171–89.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. McIntosh E, Louviere J. Separating weight and scale value: an exploration of best-attribute scaling in health economics. In: Health Economists’ Study Group Meeting. Brunel University; 2002.

  18. Xie F, Pullenayegum E, Gaebel K, Oppe M, Krabbe PFM. Eliciting preferences to the EQ-5D-5L health states: Discrete choice experiment or multiprofile case of best–worst scaling? Eur J Heal Econ. 2014;15(3):281–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Clark M, Determann D, Petrou S, Moro D, de Bekker-Grob EW. Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature. Pharmacoeconomics. 2014;32(9):883–902.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Payne K, Elliott RA. Using discrete choice experiments to value preferences for pharmacy services. Int J Pharm Pract. 2005;13(1):9–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Naik-Panvelkar P, Armour C, Saini B. Discrete choice experiments in pharmacy: a review of the literature. Int J Pharm Pract. 2013;21(1):3–19.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD). Systematic Reviews: CRD's guidance for undertaking reviews in health care. York: The University of York; 2008.

  24. Lancsar E, Louviere J. Conducting discrete choice experiments to inform healthcare decision making: a user’s guide. Pharmacoeconomics. 2008;26(8):661–77.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Bridges JF, Hauber AB, Marshall D, Lloyd A, Prosser L, Regier DA, et al. Conjoint analysis applications in health—a checklist: a report of the ISPOR Good Research Practices for Conjoint Analysis Task Force. Value Health. 2011;14(4):403–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Albada A, Triemstra M. Patients’ priorities for ambulatory hospital care centres. A survey and discrete choice experiment among elderly and chronically ill patients of a Dutch hospital. Health Expect. 2009;12(1):92–105.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. King M, Hall J, Lancsar E, Fiebig D, Hossain I, Reddel HK, et al. Patient preferences for managing asthma: results from a discrete choice experiment. Health Econ. 2007;16(7):703–17.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Laba T, Brien J. Patient preferences for adherence to treatment for osteoarthritis: the MEdication Decisions in Osteoarthritis Study (MEDOS). BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2013;14(160):1–9.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Lancsar E, Hall J, King M, Kenny P, Louviere J, Fiebig D, et al. Using discrete choice experiments to investigate subject preferences for preventive asthma medication. Respirology. 2007;12(1):127–36.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Park M, Jo C, Bae E, Lee E. A comparison of preferences of targeted therapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma between the patient group and health care professional group in South Korea. Value Health. 2012;15(6):933–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Watson V, Sussex J, Ryan M, Tetteh E. Managing poorly performing clinicians: health care providers’ willingness to pay for independent help. Health Policy (New York). 2012;104(3):260–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Ahmed A, Fincham JE. Patients’ view of retail clinics as a source of primary care: Boom for nurse practitioners? J Am Acad Nurse Pract. 2011;23(4):193–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Ahmed A, Fincham JE. Physician office vs retail clinic: patient preferences in care seeking for minor illnesses. Ann Fam Med. 2010;8(2):117–23.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Eisingerich AB, Wheelock A, Gomez GB, Garnett GP, Dybul MR, Piot PK. Attitudes and acceptance of oral and parenteral HIV preexposure prophylaxis among potential user groups: a multinational study. PLoS One. 2012;7(1):e28238.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Payne K, Fargher EA, Roberts SA, Tricker K, Elliott RA, Ratcliffe J, et al. Valuing pharmacogenetic testing services: a comparison of patients’ and health care professionals’ preferences. Value Health. 2011;14(1):121–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Rennie L, Porteous T, Ryan M. Preferences for managing symptoms of differing severity: a discrete choice experiment. Value Health. 2012;15(8):1069–76.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Wheelock A, Eisingerich AB, Ananworanich J, Gomez GB, Hallett TB, Dybul MR, et al. Are Thai MSM willing to take PrEP for HIV prevention? An analysis of attitudes, preferences and acceptance. PLoS One. 2013;8(1):e54288.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Yi D, Ryan M, Campbell S, Elliott A, Torrance N, Chambers A, et al. Using discrete choice experiments to inform randomised controlled trials: an application to chronic low back pain management in primary care. Eur J Pain. 2011;15(5):510–31.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Halme M, Linden K, Kääriä K. Patients’ preferences for generic and branded over-the-counter medicines. Patient. 2009;2(4):243–55.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Rockers PC, Jaskiewicz W, Wurts L, Kruk ME, Mgomella GS, Ntalazi F, et al. Preferences for working in rural clinics among trainee health professionals in Uganda: a discrete choice experiment. BMC Health Serv Res. 2012;12(1):212.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Gerard K, Tinelli M, Latter S, Blenkinsopp A, Smith A. Valuing the extended role of prescribing pharmacist in general practice: results from a discrete choice experiment. Value Health. 2012;15(5):699–707.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Tinelli M, Ryan M, Bond CM. Patients’ preferences for an increased pharmacist role in the management of drug therapy. Int J Pharm Pract. 2009;17(5):275–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Hong SH, Liu J, Wang J, Brown L, White-Means S. Conjoint analysis of patient preferences on Medicare medication therapy management. J Am Pharm Assoc. 2011;51(3):378–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Wang J, Hong SH, Meng S, Brown L. Pharmacists’ acceptable levels of compensation for MTM services: a conjoint analysis. Res Soc Adm Pharm. 2011;7(4):383–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Wellman GS, Vidican C. Pilot study of a hierarchical Bayes method for utility estimation in a choice-based conjoint analysis of prescription benefit plans including medication therapy management services. Res Soc Adm Pharm. 2008;4(3):218–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Naik-Panvelkar P, Armour C, Rose JM, Saini B. Patients’ value of asthma services in Australian pharmacies: the way ahead for asthma care. J Asthma. 2012;49(3):310–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Naik-Panvelkar M, Armour C, Rose J, Saini B. Patient preferences for community pharmacy asthma services. Pharmacoeconomics. 2012;30(10):961–76.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Grindrod KA, Marra CA, Colley L, Tsuyuki RT, Lynd LD. Pharmacists’ preferences for providing patient-centered services: a discrete choice experiment to guide health policy. Ann Pharmacother. 2010;44(10):1554–64.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Scott A, Bond CM, Inch J, Grant A. Preferences of community pharmacists for extended roles in primary care: a survey and discrete choice experiment. Pharmacoeconomics. 2007;25(9):783–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Mantovani LG, Monzini MS, Mannucci PM, Scalone L, Villa M, Gringeri A. Differences between patients’, physicians’ and pharmacists’ preferences for treatment products in haemophilia: a discrete choice experiment. Haemophilia. 2005;11(6):589–97.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Scalone L, Mantovani LG, Borghetti F, von Mackensen S, Gringeri A, Barillari G, et al. Patients’, physicians’, and pharmacists’ preferences towards coagulation factor concentrates to treat haemophilia with inhibitors: results from the COHIBA Study. Haemophilia. 2009;15(2):473–86.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Seston EM, Elliott RA, Noyce PR, Payne K. Women’s preferences for the provision of emergency hormonal contraception services. Pharm World Sci. 2007;29(3):183–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Porteous T, Ryan M, Bond CM, Hannaford P. Preferences for self-care or professional advice for minor illness: a discrete choice experiment. Br J Gen Pract. 2006;56(533):911–7.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  55. Boonen LHHM, Schut FT, Donkers B, Koolman X. Which preferred providers are really preferred? Effectiveness of insurers’ channeling incentives on pharmacy choice. Int J Health Care Finance Econ. 2009;9(4):347–66.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Boonen LHHM, Donkers B, Schut FT. Channeling consumers to preferred providers and the impact of status quo bias: Does type of provider matter? Health Serv Res. 2011;46(2):510–30.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  57. Ubach C, Bate A, Ryan M, Porteous T, Robertson R, Bond CM. Using discrete choice experiments to evaluate alternative electronic prescribing systems. Int J Pharm Pract. 2002;10:191–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Potoglou D, Burge P, Flynn T, Netten A, Malley J, Forder J, et al. Best–worst scaling vs. discrete choice experiments: an empirical comparison using social care data. Soc Sci Med. 2011;72(10):1717–27.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Coast J. The appropriate uses of qualitative methods in health economics. Health Econ. 1999;8(4):345–53.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Coast J, McDonald R, Baker R. Issues arising from the use of qualitative methods in health economics. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2004;9(3):171–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Coast J, Horrocks SA. Developing attributes and levels for discrete choice experiments using qualitative methods. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2007;12(1):25–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Coast J, Al-Janabi H, Sutton E, Horrocks SA, Vosper J, Swancutt DR, et al. Using qualitative methods for attribute development for discrete choice experiments: issues and recommendations. Health Econ. 2012;21(6):730–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Kløjgaard M, Bech M, Søgaard R. Designing a stated choice experiment: the value of a qualitative process. J Choice Model. 2012;5(2):1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Cheraghi-Sohi S, Bower P, Mead N, McDonald R, Whalley D, Roland M. Making sense of patient priorities: applying discrete choice methods in primary care using “think aloud” technique. Fam Pract. 2007;24(3):276–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Ryan M, Watson V, Entwistle V. Rationalising the “irrational”: a think aloud study of a discrete choice experiment responses. Health Econ. 2009;18:321–36.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Carlsson F, Martinsson P. Design techniques for stated preference methods in health economics. Health Econ. 2003;12(4):281–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Zwerina K, Huber J, Kuhfeld W. A general method for constructing efficient choice designs. SAS Technical Document TS-722E. 1996. p. 265–83.

  68. Johnson F, Lancsar E, Marshall D, Kilambi V, Mulbacher A, Regier D, et al. Constructing experimental designs for discrete-choice experiments: report of the ISPOR conjoint analysis experimental design good research practices task. Value Health. 2013;16:3–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Rose J, Bliemer M. Constructing efficient stated choice experimental designs. Transp Rev. 2009;29(5):587–617.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Swait J. A structural equation model of latent segmentation and product choice for cross-sectional revealed preference choice data. J Retail Consum Serv. 1994;1(2):77–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. McFadden D, Train K. Mixed MNL models for discrete response. J Appl Econ. 2000;15(5):447–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Greene WH, Hensher D. A latent class model for discrete choice analysis: contrasts with mixed logit. Transp Res Part B Methodol. 2003;37(8):681–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Ghijben P, Lancsar E, Zavarsek S. Preferences for oral anticoagulants in atrial fibrillation: a best–best discrete choice experiment. Pharmacoeconomics. 2014;32(11):1115–27.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Van der Pol M, Currie G, Kromm S, Ryan M. Specification of the utility function in discrete choice experiments. Value Health. 2014;17(2):297–301.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. De Bekker-Grob EW, Rose JM, Bliemer MCJ. A closer look at decision and analyst error by including nonlinearities in discrete choice models: implications on willingness-to-pay estimates derived from discrete choice data in healthcare. Pharmacoeconomics. 2013;31(12):1169–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. De Bekker-Grob E, Chorus C. Random regret-based discrete-choice modelling: an application to healthcare. Pharmacoeconomics. 2013;31(7):623–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Vass C, Rigby D, Campbell S, Tate K, Stewart A, Payne K. Investigating the framing of risk attributes in a discrete choice experiment: an application of eye-tracking and think aloud. Med Decis Mak. 2014;35(1):E99.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The research for this paper was made possible by a Grant to the project Mind the Risk from The Swedish Foundation for Humanities and Social Sciences. The authors would like to thank Mirella Longo for contributing feedback on the review protocol.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Manchester Centre for Health Economics, The University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester, UK

    Caroline Vass, Ewan Gray & Katherine Payne

Authors
  1. Caroline Vass
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ewan Gray
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Katherine Payne
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Katherine Payne.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interest

The Authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose. The authors are responsible for the content and writing of the paper.

Funding

None.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 269 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Vass, C., Gray, E. & Payne, K. Discrete choice experiments of pharmacy services: a systematic review. Int J Clin Pharm 38, 620–630 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11096-015-0221-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11096-015-0221-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation