Skip to main content
Top
Published in: The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research 4/2008

01-10-2008 | Commentary

Conjoint Analysis

A ‘New’ Way to Evaluate Patients’ Preferences

Author: Dr Sarah T. Hawley

Published in: The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research | Issue 4/2008

Login to get access

Excerpt

Incorporating patients’ preferences into medical decision making has been identified as an important element of patient-centered care.[1] Some suggest that preference concordance is critical to high-quality decisions[2] and even to quality care.[3,4] The International Patient Decision Aids Standards (IPDAS) collaboration has recently recommended that preference elicitation should be a component of all decision aids.[5] Together, this line of thinking suggests that attention to patients’ preferences in decision making will continue to grow and should result in positive outcomes related to patient decision making. However, there are virtually no recommendations for how patients’ preferences should be evaluated in medical decision making. Conjoint analysis offers an approach to preference elicitation that shows promise for improving patient-centered care. …
Literature
1.
go back to reference Institute of Medicine. Crossing the quality chasm. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2001 Institute of Medicine. Crossing the quality chasm. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2001
2.
go back to reference Sepucha K, Ozanne E, Mully Jr AG. Doing the right thing: systems support for decision quality in cancer care. Ann Behav Med 2006; 32(3): 172–8PubMedCrossRef Sepucha K, Ozanne E, Mully Jr AG. Doing the right thing: systems support for decision quality in cancer care. Ann Behav Med 2006; 32(3): 172–8PubMedCrossRef
4.
go back to reference Sidani S, Epstein D, Miranda J. Eliciting patient treatment preferences: a strategy to integrate evidence-based and patient-centered care. Worldviews Evid Based Nurs 2006; 3(3): 116–23PubMedCrossRef Sidani S, Epstein D, Miranda J. Eliciting patient treatment preferences: a strategy to integrate evidence-based and patient-centered care. Worldviews Evid Based Nurs 2006; 3(3): 116–23PubMedCrossRef
5.
go back to reference Elwyn G, O’Connor A, Stacey D, et al. Developing a quality criteria framework for patient decision aids: online international Delphi consensus process. BMJ 2006; 333(7565): 417PubMedCrossRef Elwyn G, O’Connor A, Stacey D, et al. Developing a quality criteria framework for patient decision aids: online international Delphi consensus process. BMJ 2006; 333(7565): 417PubMedCrossRef
6.
go back to reference Green PE, Srinivasan V. Conjoint analysis in marketing: new developments with implications for research and practice. J Mark 1990; 54: 3–19CrossRef Green PE, Srinivasan V. Conjoint analysis in marketing: new developments with implications for research and practice. J Mark 1990; 54: 3–19CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Bridges JFP, Kinter ET, Kidane L, et al. Things are looking up since we started listening to patients: trends in the application of conjoint analysis in health 1982–2007. Patient 2008; 1(4): 273–82PubMedCrossRef Bridges JFP, Kinter ET, Kidane L, et al. Things are looking up since we started listening to patients: trends in the application of conjoint analysis in health 1982–2007. Patient 2008; 1(4): 273–82PubMedCrossRef
8.
go back to reference Ryan M, Hughes J. Using conjoint analysis to assess women’s preferences for miscarriage management. Health Econ 1997; 6(3): 261–73PubMedCrossRef Ryan M, Hughes J. Using conjoint analysis to assess women’s preferences for miscarriage management. Health Econ 1997; 6(3): 261–73PubMedCrossRef
9.
go back to reference Bryan S, Buxton M, Sheldon R, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging for the investigation of knee injuries: an investigation of preferences. Health Econ 1998; 7(7): 595–603PubMedCrossRef Bryan S, Buxton M, Sheldon R, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging for the investigation of knee injuries: an investigation of preferences. Health Econ 1998; 7(7): 595–603PubMedCrossRef
10.
go back to reference Phillips K, Maddala T, Johnson FR. Measuring preferences for health interventions using conjoint analysis: an application to HIV testing. Health Serv Res 2002; 37(6): 1681–705PubMedCrossRef Phillips K, Maddala T, Johnson FR. Measuring preferences for health interventions using conjoint analysis: an application to HIV testing. Health Serv Res 2002; 37(6): 1681–705PubMedCrossRef
11.
go back to reference Cunningham CE, Deal K, Rimas H, et al. Using conjoint analysis to model the preferences of different patient segments for attributes of patient-centered care. Patient 2008; 1(4): 317–30PubMedCrossRef Cunningham CE, Deal K, Rimas H, et al. Using conjoint analysis to model the preferences of different patient segments for attributes of patient-centered care. Patient 2008; 1(4): 317–30PubMedCrossRef
12.
go back to reference Lloyd A, Mclntosh E, Williams AE, et al. How does patients’ quality of life guide their preferences regarding aspects of asthma therapy? A patient-preference study using discrete-choice experiment methodology. Patient 2008; 1(4): 309–16PubMedCrossRef Lloyd A, Mclntosh E, Williams AE, et al. How does patients’ quality of life guide their preferences regarding aspects of asthma therapy? A patient-preference study using discrete-choice experiment methodology. Patient 2008; 1(4): 309–16PubMedCrossRef
13.
go back to reference Fraenkel L. Conjoint analysis at the individual patient level: issues to consider as we move from a research to a clinical tool [editorial]. Patient 2008; 1(4): 251–3PubMedCrossRef Fraenkel L. Conjoint analysis at the individual patient level: issues to consider as we move from a research to a clinical tool [editorial]. Patient 2008; 1(4): 251–3PubMedCrossRef
14.
go back to reference Ryan M, Scott DA, Reeves C, et al. Eliciting public preferences for healthcare: a systematic review of techniques. Health Technol Asses 2001; 5(5): 1–186 Ryan M, Scott DA, Reeves C, et al. Eliciting public preferences for healthcare: a systematic review of techniques. Health Technol Asses 2001; 5(5): 1–186
15.
go back to reference Ryan M. A role for conjoint analysis in technology assessment in health care? Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1999; 15(3): 443–57PubMed Ryan M. A role for conjoint analysis in technology assessment in health care? Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1999; 15(3): 443–57PubMed
16.
go back to reference Bowling A, Ebrahim S. Measuring patients’ preferences for treatment and perceptions of risk. Qual Health Care 2001; 10: 2–8CrossRef Bowling A, Ebrahim S. Measuring patients’ preferences for treatment and perceptions of risk. Qual Health Care 2001; 10: 2–8CrossRef
17.
go back to reference Uzerman MJ, van Til JA, Snoek GJ. Comparison of two multi-criteria decision techniques for eliciting treatment preferences in people with neurological disorders. Patient 2008; 1(4): 265–72CrossRef Uzerman MJ, van Til JA, Snoek GJ. Comparison of two multi-criteria decision techniques for eliciting treatment preferences in people with neurological disorders. Patient 2008; 1(4): 265–72CrossRef
18.
go back to reference Telser H, Becker K, Zweifel P. Validity and reliability of willingness-to-pay estimates: evidence from two overlapping discrete-choice experiments. Patient 2008; 1(4): 283–98PubMedCrossRef Telser H, Becker K, Zweifel P. Validity and reliability of willingness-to-pay estimates: evidence from two overlapping discrete-choice experiments. Patient 2008; 1(4): 283–98PubMedCrossRef
19.
go back to reference Hauber AB. Issues that may affect the validity and reliability of willingness-to-pay estimates in stated-preference studies. Patient 2008; 1(4): 249–50PubMedCrossRef Hauber AB. Issues that may affect the validity and reliability of willingness-to-pay estimates in stated-preference studies. Patient 2008; 1(4): 249–50PubMedCrossRef
20.
go back to reference Pignone M. Patient preferences for colon cancer screening: the role of out-of-pocket costs. Am J Manag Care 2007; 13: 390–2PubMed Pignone M. Patient preferences for colon cancer screening: the role of out-of-pocket costs. Am J Manag Care 2007; 13: 390–2PubMed
Metadata
Title
Conjoint Analysis
A ‘New’ Way to Evaluate Patients’ Preferences
Author
Dr Sarah T. Hawley
Publication date
01-10-2008
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research / Issue 4/2008
Print ISSN: 1178-1653
Electronic ISSN: 1178-1661
DOI
https://doi.org/10.2165/1312067-200801040-00006

Other articles of this Issue 4/2008

The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research 4/2008 Go to the issue

Pioneer Profile

Andrew Lloyd

Editorial

Why Not Ask?

Live Webinar | 27-06-2024 | 18:00 (CEST)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Live: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)

WHO estimates that half of all patients worldwide are non-adherent to their prescribed medication. The consequences of poor adherence can be catastrophic, on both the individual and population level.

Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.

Prof. Kevin Dolgin
Prof. Florian Limbourg
Prof. Anoop Chauhan
Developed by: Springer Medicine
Obesity Clinical Trial Summary

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.

Developed by: Springer Medicine

Highlights from the ACC 2024 Congress

Year in Review: Pediatric cardiology

Watch Dr. Anne Marie Valente present the last year's highlights in pediatric and congenital heart disease in the official ACC.24 Year in Review session.

Year in Review: Pulmonary vascular disease

The last year's highlights in pulmonary vascular disease are presented by Dr. Jane Leopold in this official video from ACC.24.

Year in Review: Valvular heart disease

Watch Prof. William Zoghbi present the last year's highlights in valvular heart disease from the official ACC.24 Year in Review session.

Year in Review: Heart failure and cardiomyopathies

Watch this official video from ACC.24. Dr. Biykem Bozkurt discusses last year's major advances in heart failure and cardiomyopathies.