0
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

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

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Introduction

          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.

          Methods

          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.

          Results

          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 ( P < 0.01). Greater differences in attribute weights between attributes were reported in DCE compared with SW-DR ( P < 0.01). Agreement between the individual-level attribute ranking across methods was moderate (weighted Kappa 0.53–0.55).

          Conclusion

          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.

          Highlights
          • 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.

          Related collections

          Most cited references70

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            EuroQol: the current state of play

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Brief questions to identify patients with inadequate health literacy.

              No practical method for identifying patients with low heath literacy exists. We sought to develop screening questions for identifying patients with inadequate or marginal health literacy. Patients (n=332) at a VA preoperative clinic completed in-person interviews that included 16 health literacy screening questions on a 5-point Likert scale, followed by a validated health literacy measure, the Short Test of Functional Health Literacy in Adults (STOHFLA). Based on the STOFHLA, patients were classified as having either inadequate, marginal, or adequate health literacy. Each of the 16 screening questions was evaluated and compared to two comparison standards: (1) inadequate health literacy and (2) inadequate or marginal health literacy on the STOHFLA. Fifteen participants (4.5%) had inadequate health literacy and 25 (7.5%) had marginal health literacy on the STOHFLA. Three of the screening questions, "How often do you have someone help you read hospital materials?" "How confident are you filling out medical forms by yourself?" and "How often do you have problems learning about your medical condition because of difficulty understanding written information?" were effective in detecting inadequate health literacy (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.87, 0.80, and 0.76, respectively). These questions were weaker for identifying patients with marginal health literacy. Three questions were each effective screening tests for inadequate health literacy in this population.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Med Decis Making
                Med Decis Making
                MDM
                spmdm
                Medical Decision Making
                SAGE Publications (Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA )
                0272-989X
                1552-681X
                4 January 2024
                February 2024
                : 44
                : 2
                : 203-216
                Affiliations
                [1-0272989X231222421]Erasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
                [2-0272989X231222421]Erasmus Choice Modelling Centre, Erasmus University, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
                [3-0272989X231222421]Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Julius Centrum, Utrecht, the Netherlands
                [4-0272989X231222421]Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Julius Centrum, Utrecht, the Netherlands
                [5-0272989X231222421]Applied Research Division for Cognitive and Psychological Science, IEO, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy
                [6-0272989X231222421]Applied Research Division for Cognitive and Psychological Science, IEO, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy
                [7-0272989X231222421]Alexion AstraZeneca Rare Disease, Boston, MA, USA
                [8-0272989X231222421]Department of Regulatory and Quality Sciences, School of Pharmacy, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA
                [9-0272989X231222421]Applied Research Division for Cognitive and Psychological Science, IEO, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy
                [10-0272989X231222421]Department of Pharmaceutical and Pharmacological Sciences, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
                [11-0272989X231222421]Department of Pharmaceutical and Pharmacological Sciences, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
                [12-0272989X231222421]Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Julius Centrum, Utrecht, the Netherlands
                [13-0272989X231222421]Department of Health Sciences, Faculty of Science, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam & Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
                [14-0272989X231222421]Health Technology and Services Research (HTSR), Faculty of Behavioural Management and Social Sciences, University of Twente, Enschede, the Netherlands
                Author notes
                [*]J. Veldwijk, Erasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University, P.O. Box 1738, Rotterdam, 3000 DR, the Netherlands; ( veldwijk@ 123456eshpm.eur.nl ).
                [*]

                Shared first authorship.

                [**]

                Shared last authorship.

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4822-5068
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1236-2872
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7185-4260
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1375-7657
                Article
                10.1177_0272989X231222421
                10.1177/0272989X231222421
                10865764
                38178591
                dd5059b7-ee8f-4e4a-a39f-72001d5114e0
                © The Author(s) 2024

                This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages ( https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).

                History
                : 1 April 2022
                : 6 December 2023
                Funding
                Funded by: innovative medicines initiative, FundRef https://doi.org/10.13039/501100010767;
                Award ID: 115966
                Categories
                Original Research Articles
                Custom metadata
                ts1

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

                Comments

                Comment on this article