Individual quality of life: adaptive conjoint analysis as an alternative for direct weighting?

Abstract

In the schedule for the evaluation of individual quality of life (SEIQoL) the weights for five individualized quality of life domains have been derived by judgment analysis and direct weighting (DW). We studied the feasibility and validity of adaptive conjoint analysis (ACA) as an alternative method to derive weights in 27 cancer patients and 20 patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Further, we assessed the convergence between direct weights and weights derived by ACA, and their correlation with global quality-of-life scores. All respondents finished the ACA task, but one in five respondents were upset about the ACA task. Further, the task was vulnerable to judgment 'errors', such as inconsistent answers. The agreement between the two weights was low. Both weighted index scores were strongly correlated to the unweighted index score. The relationships between the index score and scores on a visual analogue scale for global individual quality of life and global quality of life were similar whether or not the index score was calculated with DW weights, with ACA weights, or without using weights. We conclude that, because weights did not improve the correlation between the index score and global quality of life scores, it seems sufficient to use the unweighted index score as a measure for global individual quality of life.

The experience of using the SEIQoL-DW with patients with advanced chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD): issues of process and outcome

“…There is some debate in the broader SEIQoL literature on validity, reliability, responsiveness and practicality [29] and limited critique of conceptual [26,28,30] and practical [11,15,16,24,31] aspects of the SEIQoL-DW. However, most papers citing the instrument are uncritical, reporting scores attained with little further comment.…”

Methodologic evaluation of adaptive conjoint analysis to assess patient preferences: an application in oncology

“…Still, one‐fifth (7/32, 22%) of participants chose the dominated combination, a higher proportion than Stiggelbout et al. 22 (4/45, 9%) found. A likely explanation for the disparity is Stiggelbout et al.…”

“…One study looked at the external validity of ACA‐derived utilities by assessing their consistency with preferences for medication profiles in HIV patients 21 . The other study compared weights for individualized quality of life domains derived from direct weighting vs. ACA, in rheumatology and cancer patients 22 . The latter study additionally assessed ACA completion, response consistency, and compensatory decision making (i.e.…”

Hearing Loss in Older Critical Care Patients: Participation in Decision Making

“…This variability has been associated with the degree of participation (major or minor), 34,38 sex, education, living conditions, occupational status, 39 health literacy, 40 and the impact of the "sick role." 41 Critical care nurses should assess each patient to determine the level and role of decision making the patient prefers. Various assessment tools can be used, such as the Control Preference Scale, 42 the Autonomy Preference Index, 43 and the Health Opinion Survey.…”

“…Various assessment tools can be used, such as the Control Preference Scale, 42 the Autonomy Preference Index, 43 and the Health Opinion Survey. 44 Stiggelbout et al 41 have suggested a simple and quick way to assess a patient for the patient's preferences regarding information and participation in medical decisions. Two questions can be asked: (1) Would you always want to be fully informed about the benefits and risks of medical treatment?…”