Things are Looking up Since We Started Listening to Patients
- First Online:
- 137 Downloads
Clinical and healthcare decision makers have repeatedly endorsed patient-centered care as a goal of the health system. However, traditional methods of evaluation reinforce societal views, and research focusing on views of patients is often referred to as ‘soft science.’ Conjoint analysis presents a scientifically rigorous research tool that can be used to understand patient preferences and inform decision making. This paper documents applications of conjoint analysis in medicine and systematically reviews this literature in order to identify publication trends and the range of topics to which conjoint analysis has been applied. In addition, we document important methodological aspects such as sample size, experimental design, and method of analysis.
Publications were identified through a MEDLINE search using multiple search terms for identification. We classified each article into one of three categories: clinical applications (n = 122); methodological contributions (n = 56); and health system applications (n = 47). Articles that did not use or adequately discuss conjoint analysis methods (n = 164) were discarded. We identified a near exponential increase in the application of conjoint analyses over the last 10 years of the study period (1997–2007). Over this period, the proportion of applications on clinical topics increased from 40% of articles published in MEDLINE from 1998 to 2002, to 64% of articles published from 2003 to 2007 (p = 0.002).
The average sample size among articles focusing on health system applications (n = 556) was significantly higher than clinical applications (n = 277) [p = 0.001], although this 2-fold difference was primarily due to a number of outliers reporting sample sizes in the thousands. The vast majority of papers claimed to use orthogonal factorial designs, although over a quarter of papers did not report their design properties. In terms of types of analysis, logistic regression was favored among clinical applications (28%), while probit was most commonly used among health systems applications (38%). However, 25% of clinical applications and 33% of health systems articles failed to report what regression methods were used. We used the International Classification of Diseases — version 9 (ICD-9) coding system to categorize clinical applications, with approximately 26% of publications focusing on neoplasm. Program planning and evaluation applications accounted for 22% of the health system articles.
While interest in conjoint analysis in health is likely to continue, better guidelines for conducting and reporting conjoint analyses are needed.
- 1.Institute of Medicine. To err is human: building a safer health system. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2000Google Scholar
- 2.Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. National healthcare quality report [report no.: 07-0013]. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 2006Google Scholar
- 6.US Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER), Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH). Guidance for industry: patient-reported outcome measures. Use in medical product development to support labeling claims: draft guidance. February 2006 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.fda.gov/Cder/guidance/5460dft.pdf [Accessed 2008 Jan 28]
- 7.NHS Executive. Patient and public involvement in the new NHS. Leeds: Department of Health, 1999Google Scholar
- 15.Segal R. Forecasting the market for electric vehicles in California using conjoint analysis. Energy J 1995; 16(6): 89–112Google Scholar
- 18.Kroes EP, Sheldon RJ. Stated preference methods: an introduction. JTEP 1988; 22(1): 11–25Google Scholar
- 19.Fowkes T, Wardman M. The design of stated preference travel choice experiments, with special reference to inter-personal taste variations. JTEP 1988; 22(1): 27–44Google Scholar
- 20.Hensher DA, Barnard PO, Truong TP. The role of stated preference methods in studies of travel choice. JTEP 1988; 22(1): 45–58Google Scholar
- 21.Bates J. Econometric issues in stated preference analysis. JTEP 1988; 22(1): 59–69Google Scholar
- 22.Wardman M. A comparison of revealed preference and stated preference models of travel behaviour. JTEP 1988; 22(1): 71–91Google Scholar
- 23.Louviere JJ. Conjoint analysis modelling of stated preferences: a review of theory, methods, recent developments and external validity. JTEP 1988; 22(1): 93–119Google Scholar
- 24.Bradley M. Realism and adaptation in designing hypothetical travel choice concepts. JTEP 1988; 22(1): 121–37Google Scholar
- 25.Rae D. Visibility impairment at Mesa Verde National Park: an analysis of benefits and costs of controlling emissions in the Four Corners area. Boston (MA): Electric Power Research Institute, 1981Google Scholar
- 26.Rae D. Benefits of improving visibility at Great Smoky National Park [draft]. Boston (MA): Electric Power Research Institute, 1981Google Scholar
- 28.Louviere J. Conjoint analysis modeling of stated preferences. J Transport Econ Pol 1988; 22(1): 93–119Google Scholar
- 29.Ryan M, Gerard K. Using discrete choice experiments to value health care programmes: current practice and future reflections. Health Econ Health Policy 2003; 2(1): 55–64Google Scholar
- 37.Rose J, Bliemer M. Designing stated choice experiments: the state of the art. 1 1th International Conference on Travel Behaviour Research; 2006 Aug 16–20; KyotoGoogle Scholar
- 39.Orme B. Sample size issues and conjoint analysis: getting started with conjoint analysis. Strategies for product design and pricing research. Madison (WI): Research Publishers LLC, 1998Google Scholar
- 41.Ryan M, Gerard K. Using discrete choice experiments in health economics: moving forward. In: Scott A, Mayndard A, Elliot R, editors. Advances in health economics. Hoboken (NJ): John Wiley and Sons, Ltd, 2003Google Scholar
- 45.Viney R, Lancsar E, Louviere J. Discrete choice experiments to measure consumer preferences for health and healthcare. Pharmacoeconomics Outcomes Res 2002; 2(4): 89–101Google Scholar
- 46.Bridges J, Onukwugha E, Johnson F, et al. Patient preference methods: a patient centered evaluation paradigm. ISPOR Connections 2007; 13(6): 4–7Google Scholar