Pmc62 Assessing the Quality of Conjoint Analysis Applications in Health: A Pilot Evaluation of the Ispor Checklist for Good Research Practice in Conjoint Analysis

Marshall, DA; Hauber, A. Brett; Bridges, JF; Cameron, Roslyn; Weaver, Lana; Dionne, Joanna C.; Johnson, FR

doi:10.1016/s1098-3015(10)73213-7

Cited by 3 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Second, while the sample size is small, according to published guidelines for choice-format conjoint analyses, the sample is more than sufficient to conduct the tests based on the experimental design. 34 Furthermore, the small confidence intervals associated with our estimates suggest robust results. Third, our results are not generalizable to the general US population.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 64%

“…This type of design is advantageous because it maximizes the statistical information obtainable from choice tasks using fewer questions than required in a full factorial design (i.e., all combinations of characteristics and levels or categories). 33,34 The final survey consisted of four versions, each including nine choice tasks. Participants were randomly assigned to one of the four versions.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Value of Genetic Testing for Hereditary Colorectal Cancer in a Probability-Based US Online Sample

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background While choices about genetic testing are increasingly common for patients and families, and public opinion surveys suggest public interest in genomics, it is not known how adults from the general population value genetic testing for heritable conditions. We sought to understand in a US sample the relative value of the characteristics of genetic tests to identify risk of hereditary colorectal cancer, among the first genomic applications with evidence to support its translation to clinical settings. Methods A Web-enabled choice-format conjoint survey was conducted with adults age 50 and older from a probability-based US panel. Participants were asked to make a series of choices between two hypothetical blood tests that differed in risk of false negative test, privacy, and cost. Random parameters logit models were used to estimate preferences, the dollar value of genetic information, and intent to have genetic testing. Results A total of 355 individuals completed choice-format questions. Cost and privacy were more highly valued than reducing the chance of a false negative result. Most (97%, 95% Confidence Interval (CI): 95% to 99%) would have genetic testing to reduce the risk of dying from colorectal cancer in the best scenario (no false negatives, results disclosed to primary care physician). Only 41% (95% CI: 25% to 57%) would have genetic testing in the worst case (20% false negatives, results disclosed to insurance company). Conclusions Given the characteristics and levels included in the choice, if false negative test results are unlikely and results are shared with a primary care physician, the majority would have genetic testing. As genomic services become widely available, primary care professionals will need to be increasingly knowledgeable about genetic testing decisions.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 64%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Value of Genetic Testing for Hereditary Colorectal Cancer in a Probability-Based US Online Sample

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Sample size estimation for DCE or conjoint analysis studies is complex 45 ; our study is consistent with recent applications in health that have typically reported sample sizes of 100-300, 46 and it improves on some earlier applications where sample size was as low as 30. 47…”

Section: Recruitmentmentioning

confidence: 99%