6
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Comparing Preferences for Disease Profiles: A Discrete Choice Experiment from a US Societal Perspective

      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

          Objectives

          There is increasing interest in expanding the elements of value to be considered when making health policy decisions. To help inform value frameworks, this study quantified preferences for disease attributes in a general public sample and examined which combination of attributes (disease profiles) are considered most important for research and treatment.

          Methods

          A discrete choice experiment (DCE) was conducted in a US general population sample, recruited through online consumer panels. Respondents were asked to select one of a set of health conditions they believed to be most important, characterized by attributes defined by a previous qualitative study: onset age; cause of disease; life expectancy; caregiver requirement; symptom burden (characterized by the Health Utilities Index with varying levels of ambulation independence, dexterity limitations, and degree of pain and discomfort); and disease prevalence. A fractional factorial DCE design was implemented using R, and 60 choice sets were generated (separated into blocks of 10 per participant). Data were analyzed using a mixed-logit regression model, and results used to assess the likelihood of preferring disease profiles. Based on individual attribute preferences, overall preferences for disease profiles, including a profile aligned with Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD), were compared.

          Results

          Fifty-two percent of respondents ( n = 537) were female, and 70.6% were aged 18–54 years. Attributes considered most important were those related to life expectancy (odds ratio [OR], 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.88 [1.56–2.27] for a 50% reduction in remaining life expectancy vs no impact), and symptom burden (OR [95% CI] 1.84 [1.47–2.31] for severe vs mild burden). Greater importance was also found for pediatric onset, caregiver requirement, and diseases affecting more people. As an example of disease profile preferences, a DMD-like pediatric inherited disease with 50% reduction in life expectancy, extensive caregiver requirement, severe symptom burden, and 1:5000 prevalence had 2.37-fold higher odds of being selected as important versus an equivalent disease with adult onset and no life expectancy reduction.

          Conclusions

          Of disease attributes included in this DCE, respondents valued higher prevalence of disease, life expectancy and symptom burden as most important for prioritizing research and treatment. Based on expressed attribute preferences, a case study of an inherited pediatric disease involving substantial reductions to length and quality of life and requiring caregiver support has relatively high odds of being identified as important compared to diseases reflecting differing attribute profiles. These findings can help inform expansions of value frameworks by identifying important attributes from the societal perspective.

          Supplementary Information

          The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40258-023-00869-7.

          Related collections

          Most cited references38

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

          Conjoint analysis applications in health--a checklist: a report of the ISPOR Good Research Practices for Conjoint Analysis Task Force.

          The application of conjoint analysis (including discrete-choice experiments and other multiattribute stated-preference methods) in health has increased rapidly over the past decade. A wider acceptance of these methods is limited by an absence of consensus-based methodological standards. The International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) Good Research Practices for Conjoint Analysis Task Force was established to identify good research practices for conjoint-analysis applications in health. The task force met regularly to identify the important steps in a conjoint analysis, to discuss good research practices for conjoint analysis, and to develop and refine the key criteria for identifying good research practices. ISPOR members contributed to this process through an extensive consultation process. A final consensus meeting was held to revise the article using these comments, and those of a number of international reviewers. Task force findings are presented as a 10-item checklist covering: 1) research question; 2) attributes and levels; 3) construction of tasks; 4) experimental design; 5) preference elicitation; 6) instrument design; 7) data-collection plan; 8) statistical analyses; 9) results and conclusions; and 10) study presentation. A primary question relating to each of the 10 items is posed, and three sub-questions examine finer issues within items. Although the checklist should not be interpreted as endorsing any specific methodological approach to conjoint analysis, it can facilitate future training activities and discussions of good research practices for the application of conjoint-analysis methods in health care studies. Copyright © 2011 International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Diagnosis and management of Duchenne muscular dystrophy, part 1: diagnosis, and neuromuscular, rehabilitation, endocrine, and gastrointestinal and nutritional management

            Since the publication of the Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) care considerations in 2010, multidisciplinary care of this severe, progressive neuromuscular disease has evolved. In conjunction with improved patient survival, a shift to more anticipatory diagnostic and therapeutic strategies has occurred, with a renewed focus on patient quality of life. In 2014, a steering committee of experts from a wide range of disciplines was established to update the 2010 DMD care considerations, with the goal of improving patient care. The new care considerations aim to address the needs of patients with prolonged survival, to provide guidance on advances in assessments and interventions, and to consider the implications of emerging genetic and molecular therapies for DMD. The committee identified 11 topics to be included in the update, eight of which were addressed in the original care considerations. The three new topics are primary care and emergency management, endocrine management, and transitions of care across the lifespan. In part 1 of this three-part update, we present care considerations for diagnosis of DMD and neuromuscular, rehabilitation, endocrine (growth, puberty, and adrenal insufficiency), and gastrointestinal (including nutrition and dysphagia) management.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature.

              Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) have become a commonly used instrument in health economics. This paper updates a review of published papers between 1990 and 2000 for the years 2001-2008. Based on this previous review, and a number of other key review papers, focus is given to three issues: experimental design; estimation procedures; and validity of responses. Consideration is also given to how DCEs are applied and reported. We identified 114 DCEs, covering a wide range of policy questions. Applications took place in a broader range of health-care systems, and there has been a move to incorporating fewer attributes, more choices and interview-based surveys. There has also been a shift towards statistically more efficient designs and flexible econometric models. The reporting of monetary values continues to be popular, the use of utility scores has not gained popularity, and there has been an increasing use of odds ratios and probabilities. The latter are likely to be useful at the policy level to investigate take-up and acceptability of new interventions. Incorporation of interactions terms in the design and analysis of DCEs, explanations of risk, tests of external validity and incorporation of DCE results into a decision-making framework remain important areas for future research. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                kjohnston@broadstreetheor.com
                Journal
                Appl Health Econ Health Policy
                Appl Health Econ Health Policy
                Applied Health Economics and Health Policy
                Springer International Publishing (Cham )
                1175-5652
                1179-1896
                23 January 2024
                23 January 2024
                2024
                : 22
                : 3
                : 343-352
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Broadstreet HEOR, 201-343 Railway St., Vancouver, BC V6A 1A4 Canada
                [2 ]Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc., ( https://ror.org/054f2wp19) 215 First Street, Cambridge, MA USA
                [3 ]McMaster University, ( https://ror.org/02fa3aq29) Hamilton, ON Canada
                [4 ]Tufts Medical Center, ( https://ror.org/002hsbm82) Boston, MA USA
                [5 ]The University of Utah, ( https://ror.org/03r0ha626) Salt Lake City, UT USA
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4570-9972
                Article
                869
                10.1007/s40258-023-00869-7
                11021240
                38253973
                b7bfb745-6bbe-444b-9cfd-6ab9d06e4d92
                © The Author(s) 2024

                Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

                History
                : 18 December 2023
                Funding
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100014943, Sarepta Therapeutics;
                Categories
                Original Research Article
                Custom metadata
                © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2024

                Economics of health & social care
                i1 health,c1 econometric and statistical methods and methodology,general

                Comments

                Comment on this article