Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Conjoint Analysis

A ‘New’ Way to Evaluate Patients’ Preferences

  • Commentary
  • Published:
The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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

References

  1. Institute of Medicine. Crossing the quality chasm. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2001

  2. Sepucha K, Ozanne E, Mully Jr AG. Doing the right thing: systems support for decision quality in cancer care. Ann Behav Med 2006; 32(3): 172–8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Sepucha KR, Fowler Jr FJ, Mulley Jr AG. Policy support for patient-centered care: the need for measureable improvements in decision quality. Health Aff (Millwood) 2004; VAR54-62 [online]. Available from URL: http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/full/hlthaff.var.54/DC2 [Accessed 2008 Mar 17]

  4. Sidani S, Epstein D, Miranda J. Eliciting patient treatment preferences: a strategy to integrate evidence-based and patient-centered care. Worldviews Evid Based Nurs 2006; 3(3): 116–23

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Elwyn G, O’Connor A, Stacey D, et al. Developing a quality criteria framework for patient decision aids: online international Delphi consensus process. BMJ 2006; 333(7565): 417

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Green PE, Srinivasan V. Conjoint analysis in marketing: new developments with implications for research and practice. J Mark 1990; 54: 3–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Bridges JFP, Kinter ET, Kidane L, et al. Things are looking up since we started listening to patients: trends in the application of conjoint analysis in health 1982–2007. Patient 2008; 1(4): 273–82

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Ryan M, Hughes J. Using conjoint analysis to assess women’s preferences for miscarriage management. Health Econ 1997; 6(3): 261–73

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Bryan S, Buxton M, Sheldon R, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging for the investigation of knee injuries: an investigation of preferences. Health Econ 1998; 7(7): 595–603

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Phillips K, Maddala T, Johnson FR. Measuring preferences for health interventions using conjoint analysis: an application to HIV testing. Health Serv Res 2002; 37(6): 1681–705

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Cunningham CE, Deal K, Rimas H, et al. Using conjoint analysis to model the preferences of different patient segments for attributes of patient-centered care. Patient 2008; 1(4): 317–30

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Lloyd A, Mclntosh E, Williams AE, et al. How does patients’ quality of life guide their preferences regarding aspects of asthma therapy? A patient-preference study using discrete-choice experiment methodology. Patient 2008; 1(4): 309–16

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Fraenkel L. Conjoint analysis at the individual patient level: issues to consider as we move from a research to a clinical tool [editorial]. Patient 2008; 1(4): 251–3

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Ryan M, Scott DA, Reeves C, et al. Eliciting public preferences for healthcare: a systematic review of techniques. Health Technol Asses 2001; 5(5): 1–186

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Ryan M. A role for conjoint analysis in technology assessment in health care? Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1999; 15(3): 443–57

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Bowling A, Ebrahim S. Measuring patients’ preferences for treatment and perceptions of risk. Qual Health Care 2001; 10: 2–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Uzerman MJ, van Til JA, Snoek GJ. Comparison of two multi-criteria decision techniques for eliciting treatment preferences in people with neurological disorders. Patient 2008; 1(4): 265–72

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Telser H, Becker K, Zweifel P. Validity and reliability of willingness-to-pay estimates: evidence from two overlapping discrete-choice experiments. Patient 2008; 1(4): 283–98

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Hauber AB. Issues that may affect the validity and reliability of willingness-to-pay estimates in stated-preference studies. Patient 2008; 1(4): 249–50

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Pignone M. Patient preferences for colon cancer screening: the role of out-of-pocket costs. Am J Manag Care 2007; 13: 390–2

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of General Medicine, University of Michigan Health System, Ann Arbor VA Medical Center, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA

    Sarah T. Hawley

Authors
  1. Sarah T. Hawley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sarah T. Hawley.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hawley, S.T. Conjoint Analysis. Patient-Patient-Centered-Outcome-Res 1, 255–257 (2008). https://doi.org/10.2165/1312067-200801040-00006

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/1312067-200801040-00006

Keywords

Search

Navigation