Comparing Discrete Choice Experiment with Swing Weighting to Estimate Attribute Relative Importance: A Case Study in Lung Cancer Patient Preferences.

attribute relative importance discrete choice experiment lung cancer treatment patient preferences swing weighting

Journal

Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making
ISSN: 1552-681X
Titre abrégé: Med Decis Making
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8109073

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
04 Jan 2024
Historique:
medline: 5 1 2024
pubmed: 5 1 2024
entrez: 5 1 2024
Statut: aheadofprint

Résumé

Discrete choice experiments (DCE) are commonly used to elicit patient preferences and to determine the relative importance of attributes but can be complex and costly to administer. Simpler methods that measure relative importance exist, such as swing weighting with direct rating (SW-DR), but there is little empirical evidence comparing the two. This study aimed to directly compare attribute relative importance rankings and weights elicited using a DCE and SW-DR. A total of 307 patients with non-small-cell lung cancer in Italy and Belgium completed an online survey assessing preferences for cancer treatment using DCE and SW-DR. The relative importance of the attributes was determined using a random parameter logit model for the DCE and rank order centroid method (ROC) for SW-DR. Differences in relative importance ranking and weights between the methods were assessed using Cohen's weighted kappa and Dirichlet regression. Feedback on ease of understanding and answering the 2 tasks was also collected. Most respondents (>65%) found both tasks (very) easy to understand and answer. The same attribute, survival, was ranked most important irrespective of the methods applied. The overall ranking of the attributes on an aggregate level differed significantly between DCE and SW-ROC ( Significant differences in attribute importance between DCE and SW-DR were found. Respondents reported both methods being relatively easy to understand and answer. Further studies confirming these findings are warranted. Such studies will help to provide accurate guidance for methods selection when studying relative attribute importance across a wide array of preference-relevant decisions. Both DCEs and SW tasks can be used to determine attribute relative importance rankings and weights; however, little evidence exists empirically comparing these methods in terms of outcomes or respondent usability.Most respondents found the DCE and SW tasks very easy or easy to understand and answer.A direct comparison of DCE and SW found significant differences in attribute importance rankings and weights as well as a greater spread in the DCE-derived attribute relative importance weights.

Identifiants

pubmed: 38178591
doi: 10.1177/0272989X231222421
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

272989X231222421

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

The authors declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: J. Veldwijk, I. P. Smith, S. Oliveri, S. Petrocchi, L. Lanzoni, Isabelle Huys, Rosanne Janssens, Ardine de Wit, and C. G. M. Groothuis-Oudshoorn declare no conflict of interest. M. Y. Smith is a full-time employee of Alexion AstraZeneca Rare Disease and is a shareholder in the company. The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This study formed part of the PREFER project. The Patient Preferences in Benefit-Risk Assessments during the Drug Life Cycle (PREFER) project has received funding from the Innovative Medicines Initiative 2 Joint Undertaking under grant agreement No. 115966. This Joint Undertaking receives support from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program and EFPIA. The PREFER project aims to strengthen patient-centric decision-making through evidence-based recommendations guiding stakeholders on how and when patient preference studies should inform medical product development and evaluation. Financial support for this study was provided entirely by a grant from Innovative Medicines Initiative 2 Joint Undertaking under grant No. 11966. The funding agreement ensured the authors’ independence in designing the study, interpreting the data, writing, and publishing the report.

Auteurs

J Veldwijk (J)

Erasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Erasmus Choice Modelling Centre, Erasmus University, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Julius Centrum, Utrecht, the Netherlands.

I P Smith (IP)

Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Julius Centrum, Utrecht, the Netherlands.

S Oliveri (S)

Applied Research Division for Cognitive and Psychological Science, IEO, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy.

S Petrocchi (S)

Applied Research Division for Cognitive and Psychological Science, IEO, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy.

M Y Smith (MY)

Alexion AstraZeneca Rare Disease, Boston, MA, USA.
Department of Regulatory and Quality Sciences, School of Pharmacy, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.

L Lanzoni (L)

Applied Research Division for Cognitive and Psychological Science, IEO, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy.

R Janssens (R)

Department of Pharmaceutical and Pharmacological Sciences, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.

I Huys (I)

Department of Pharmaceutical and Pharmacological Sciences, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.

G A de Wit (GA)

Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Julius Centrum, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Department of Health Sciences, Faculty of Science, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam & Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

C G M Groothuis-Oudshoorn (CGM)

Health Technology and Services Research (HTSR), Faculty of Behavioural Management and Social Sciences, University of Twente, Enschede, the Netherlands.

Classifications MeSH