Development of a Discrete-Choice Experiment (DCE) to Elicit Adolescent and Parent Preferences for Hypodontia Treatment

Barber, Sophy; Bekker, Hilary; Marti, Joachim; Pavitt, Sue; Khambay, Balvinder; Meads, David

doi:10.1007/s40271-018-0338-0

Cited by 30 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 45 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A transparent and systematic approach was taken to develop the PAVING protocol. While protocols of preference studies explaining the choice of attributes are increasingly being published (79)(80)(81)(82), it is not standard practice to justify the choice of the preference method and the choice is often DCE (83). However, depending on the research question, researchers may prefer other methods over DCEs in case of very small sample sizes.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Patient Preferences to Assess Value IN Gene Therapies: Protocol Development for the PAVING Study in Hemophilia

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: Gene therapies are innovative therapies that are increasingly being developed. However, health technology assessment (HTA) and payer decision making on these therapies is impeded by uncertainties, especially regarding long-term outcomes. Through measuring patient preferences regarding gene therapies, the importance of unique elements that go beyond health gain can be quantified and inform value assessments. We designed a study, namely the Patient preferences to Assess Value IN Gene therapies (PAVING) study, that can inform HTA and payers by investigating trade-offs that adult Belgian hemophilia A and B patients are willing to make when asked to choose between a standard of care and gene therapy.Methods and Analysis: An eight-step approach was taken to establish the protocol for this study: (1) stated preference method selection, (2) initial attributes identification, (3) stakeholder (HTA and payer) needs identification, (4) patient relevant attributes and information needs identification, (5) level identification and choice task construction, (6) educational tool design, (7) survey integration, and (8) piloting and pretesting. In the end, a threshold technique survey was designed using the attributes “Annual bleeding rate,” “Chance to stop prophylaxis,” “Time that side effects have been studied,” and “Quality of Life.”Ethics and Dissemination: The Medical Ethics Committee of UZ KU Leuven/Research approved the study. Results from the study will be presented to stakeholders and patients at conferences and in peer-reviewed journals. We hope that results from the PAVING study can inform decision makers on the acceptability of uncertainties and the value of gene therapies to patients.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Patient Preferences to Assess Value IN Gene Therapies: Protocol Development for the PAVING Study in Hemophilia

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In our study, the literature review identified conceptual attributes while the qualitative study unearthed context-specific attributes. Several studies have adopted such strategies [14, 62].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The current capitation arrangement in Kenya would make health care providers resent performance requirements being attached to the payment mechanism. Piloting of the attributes coupled with a comparison of the results with the qualitative study was vital as we could have misspecified attributes and levels and therefore misinform policy [62].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Attribute development and level selection for a discrete choice experiment to elicit the preferences of health care providers for capitation payment mechanism in Kenya

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundStated preference elicitation methods such as discrete choice experiments (DCEs) are now widely used in the health domain. However, the “quality” of health-related DCEs has come under criticism due to the lack of rigour in conducting and reporting some aspects of the design process such as attribute and level development. Superficially selecting attributes and levels and vaguely reporting the process might result in misspecification of attributes which may, in turn, bias the study and misinform policy. To address these concerns, we meticulously conducted and report our systematic attribute development and level selection process for a DCE to elicit the preferences of health care providers for the attributes of a capitation payment mechanism in Kenya.MethodologyWe used a four-stage process proposed by Helter and Boehler to conduct and report the attribute development and level selection process. The process entailed raw data collection, data reduction, removing inappropriate attributes, and wording of attributes. Raw data was collected through a literature review and a qualitative study. Data was reduced to a long list of attributes which were then screened for appropriateness by a panel of experts. The resulting attributes and levels were worded and pretested in a pilot study. Revisions were made and a final list of attributes and levels decided.ResultsThe literature review unearthed seven attributes of provider payment mechanisms while the qualitative study uncovered 10 capitation attributes. Then, inappropriate attributes were removed using criteria such as salience, correlation, plausibility, and capability of being traded. The resulting five attributes were worded appropriately and pretested in a pilot study with 31 respondents. The pilot study results were used to make revisions. Finally, four attributes were established for the DCE, namely, payment schedule, timeliness of payments, capitation rate per individual per year, and services to be paid by the capitation rate.ConclusionBy rigorously conducting and reporting the process of attribute development and level selection of our DCE,we improved transparency and helped researchers judge the quality.

show abstract

“…To date, there is no single guideline stating how attributes should be identified for subsequent quantitative preference research 18 . Our interview guide combined three techniques: 1) open questions to detect new attributes not identified during literature review (bottom‐up) and to question participants about the importance of attributes identified in literature (top‐down), 2) ranking exercises and 3) case questions 18–21 . Bottom‐up attributes were identified by asking participants about the top three elements that would influence their choice between standard of care and gene therapy before showing any top‐down identified attributes.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…18 Our interview guide combined three techniques: 1) open questions to detect new attributes not identified during literature review (bottom-up) and to question participants about the importance of attributes identified in literature (top-down), 2) ranking exercises and 3) case questions. [18][19][20][21] Bottom-up attributes were identified by asking participants about the top three elements that would influence their choice between standard of care and gene therapy before showing any top-down identified attributes. Literature from the systematic literature review informed the identification of 22 topdown attributes.…”

Section: Interview Guide Developmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Patient perspectives regarding gene therapy in haemophilia: Interviews from the PAVING study

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction Exploring patient perceptions regarding gene therapies may provide insights about their acceptability to patients. Objective To investigate opinions of people with haemophilia (PWH) regarding gene therapies. Moreover, this study aimed to identify patient‐relevant attributes (treatment features) that influence PWH’s treatment choices. Methods Semi‐structured individual interviews were conducted with Belgian PWH, types A and B. A predefined interview guide included information sections and open, attribute ranking and case questions. Qualitative data were organized using NVivo 12 and analysed following framework analysis. Sum totals of scores obtained in the ranking exercise were calculated per attribute. Results In total, 20 PWH participated in the interviews. Most participants demonstrated a positive attitude towards gene therapy and were very willing (40%; n = 8) or willing (35%; n = 7) to receive this treatment. The following five attributes were identified as most important to PWH in making their choice: annual bleeding rate, factor level, uncertainty of long‐term risks, impact on daily life, and probability that prophylaxis can be stopped. While participants were concerned about the uncertainty regarding long‐term safety, most participants were less concerned about uncertainty regarding long‐term efficacy. Conclusions This qualitative study showed that most PWH have a positive attitude towards gene therapy and that besides efficacy, safety and the related uncertainties, also impact on daily life is important to patients. The identified patient‐relevant attributes may be used by regulators, health technology assessment bodies and payers in their evaluation of gene therapies for haemophilia. Moreover, they may inform clinical trial design, pay‐for‐performance schemes and real‐world evidence studies.

show abstract

Development of a Discrete-Choice Experiment (DCE) to Elicit Adolescent and Parent Preferences for Hypodontia Treatment

Cited by 30 publications

References 45 publications

Patient Preferences to Assess Value IN Gene Therapies: Protocol Development for the PAVING Study in Hemophilia

Patient Preferences to Assess Value IN Gene Therapies: Protocol Development for the PAVING Study in Hemophilia

Attribute development and level selection for a discrete choice experiment to elicit the preferences of health care providers for capitation payment mechanism in Kenya

Patient perspectives regarding gene therapy in haemophilia: Interviews from the PAVING study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About