Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Implementation Science 1/2013

Open Access 01-12-2013 | Methodology

Exploring the feasibility of Conjoint Analysis as a tool for prioritizing innovations for implementation

Authors: Katherine Farley, Carl Thompson, Andria Hanbury, Duncan Chambers

Published in: Implementation Science | Issue 1/2013

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

In an era of scarce and competing priorities for implementation, choosing what to implement is a key decision point for many behavioural change projects. The values and attitudes of the professionals and managers involved inevitably impact the priority attached to decision options. Reliably capturing such values is challenging.

Methods

This paper presents an approach for capturing and incorporating professional values into the prioritization of healthcare innovations being considered for adoption. Conjoint Analysis (CA) was used in a single UK Primary Care Trust to measure the priorities of healthcare professionals working with women with postnatal depression. Rating-based CA data was gathered using a questionnaire and then mapped onto 12 interventions being considered as a means of improving the management of postnatal depression.

Results

The ‘impact on patient care’ and the ‘quality of supporting evidence’ associated with the potential innovations were the most influential in shaping priorities. Professionals were least influenced by whether an innovation was an existing national or local priority, or whether current practice in the Trust was meeting minimum standards. Ranking the 12 innovations by the preferences of potential adopters revealed ‘guided self help’ was the top priority for implementation and ‘screening questions for post natal depression’ the least. When other factors were considered (such as the presence of routine data or planned implementation activity elsewhere in the Trust), the project team chose to combine the eight related treatments and implement these as a single innovation referred to as ‘psychological therapies’.

Conclusions

Using Conjoint Analysis to prioritise potential innovation implementation options is a feasible means of capturing the utility of stakeholders and thus increasing the chances of an innovation being adopted. There are some practical barriers to overcome such as increasing response rates to conjoint surveys before routine and unevaluated use of this technique should be considered.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Mason J: When is it cost-effective to change the behavior of health professionals?. JAMA. 2001, 286 (23): 2988-2992. 10.1001/jama.286.23.2988.CrossRefPubMed Mason J: When is it cost-effective to change the behavior of health professionals?. JAMA. 2001, 286 (23): 2988-2992. 10.1001/jama.286.23.2988.CrossRefPubMed
2.
go back to reference Sculpher M: Evaluating the cost-effectiveness of interventions designed to increase the utilisation of evidence-based guidelines. Fam Pract. 2000, 17 (Supp): S26-S31.CrossRefPubMed Sculpher M: Evaluating the cost-effectiveness of interventions designed to increase the utilisation of evidence-based guidelines. Fam Pract. 2000, 17 (Supp): S26-S31.CrossRefPubMed
3.
go back to reference Jacques H:GPs face “tsunami” of guidance. BMJ Careers. 2011, Jacques H:GPs face “tsunami” of guidance. BMJ Careers. 2011,
4.
go back to reference Grimshaw JM: Effectiveness and efficiency of guideline dissemination and implementation strategies. Health Technol Assess. 2004, 8 (6): 1-72. p. iii-ivCrossRef Grimshaw JM: Effectiveness and efficiency of guideline dissemination and implementation strategies. Health Technol Assess. 2004, 8 (6): 1-72. p. iii-ivCrossRef
5.
go back to reference Mitton C, Donaldson C: Twenty-five years of programme budgeting and marginal analysis in the health sector, 1974–1999. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2001, 6 (4): 9.CrossRef Mitton C, Donaldson C: Twenty-five years of programme budgeting and marginal analysis in the health sector, 1974–1999. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2001, 6 (4): 9.CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Greenhalgh T: Diffusion of innovations in service organizations: systematic review and recommendations. Milbank Q. 2004, 82 (4): 581-629. 10.1111/j.0887-378X.2004.00325.x.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Greenhalgh T: Diffusion of innovations in service organizations: systematic review and recommendations. Milbank Q. 2004, 82 (4): 581-629. 10.1111/j.0887-378X.2004.00325.x.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
7.
go back to reference Rogers E: Diffusion of Innovations. 2003, London: Free Press Rogers E: Diffusion of Innovations. 2003, London: Free Press
8.
go back to reference Eccles M, Grimshaw J, Walker A: Changing the behaviour of healthcare professionals: the use of theory in promoting the uptake of research findings. J Clin Epidemiol. 2005, 58 (2): 107-112. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2004.09.002.CrossRefPubMed Eccles M, Grimshaw J, Walker A: Changing the behaviour of healthcare professionals: the use of theory in promoting the uptake of research findings. J Clin Epidemiol. 2005, 58 (2): 107-112. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2004.09.002.CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference Michie S: Specifying and reporting complex behaviour change interventions: the need for a scientific method. Implement Sci. 2009, 4: 40-10.1186/1748-5908-4-40.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Michie S: Specifying and reporting complex behaviour change interventions: the need for a scientific method. Implement Sci. 2009, 4: 40-10.1186/1748-5908-4-40.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
10.
go back to reference Foy R, MacLennan G, Grimshaw J, Penney G, Campbell M, Grol R: Attributes of clinical recommendations that influence change in practice following audit and feedback. J Clin Epidemiol. 2002, 55: 5-10.1016/S0895-4356(01)00413-9.CrossRef Foy R, MacLennan G, Grimshaw J, Penney G, Campbell M, Grol R: Attributes of clinical recommendations that influence change in practice following audit and feedback. J Clin Epidemiol. 2002, 55: 5-10.1016/S0895-4356(01)00413-9.CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Hanbury A, Thompson C, Wilson PM, Farley K, Chambers D, Warren E, Bibby J: Translating Research into Practice in Leeds and Bradford (TRiPLaB): Protocol for a Programme of Research. Implement Sci. 2010, 5 (37): Hanbury A, Thompson C, Wilson PM, Farley K, Chambers D, Warren E, Bibby J: Translating Research into Practice in Leeds and Bradford (TRiPLaB): Protocol for a Programme of Research. Implement Sci. 2010, 5 (37):
12.
go back to reference McFadden D: The Choice Theory Approach to Market Research. Mark Sci. 1986, 5 (4): 22.CrossRef McFadden D: The Choice Theory Approach to Market Research. Mark Sci. 1986, 5 (4): 22.CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Luce D, Tukey J: Simultaneous conjoint measurement: a new type of fundamental measurement. J Math Psychol. 1964, 1 (1): 27.CrossRef Luce D, Tukey J: Simultaneous conjoint measurement: a new type of fundamental measurement. J Math Psychol. 1964, 1 (1): 27.CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Farrar S: Using discrete choice modelling in priority setting: an application to clinical service developments. Soc Sci Med. 2000, 50 (1): 63-75. 10.1016/S0277-9536(99)00268-3.CrossRefPubMed Farrar S: Using discrete choice modelling in priority setting: an application to clinical service developments. Soc Sci Med. 2000, 50 (1): 63-75. 10.1016/S0277-9536(99)00268-3.CrossRefPubMed
15.
go back to reference Ryan M, Farrar S:Using conjoint analysis to elicit preferences for health care. BMJ Careers. 2000, 320:7248: 1530-1533.CrossRef Ryan M, Farrar S:Using conjoint analysis to elicit preferences for health care. BMJ Careers. 2000, 320:7248: 1530-1533.CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Cattin P, Wittink D: Commercial use of conjoint analysis: a survey. J Marketing. 1982, 46: 9.CrossRef Cattin P, Wittink D: Commercial use of conjoint analysis: a survey. J Marketing. 1982, 46: 9.CrossRef
17.
go back to reference Cave M, Burningham D, Buxton M, Hanney S, Pollitt C, Scanlan M, Shurmer M:The Valuation of Changes in Quality in the Public Services. MHSO. 1993, Cave M, Burningham D, Buxton M, Hanney S, Pollitt C, Scanlan M, Shurmer M:The Valuation of Changes in Quality in the Public Services. MHSO. 1993,
18.
go back to reference Ryan M: Using conjoint analysis to take account of patient preferences and go beyond health outcomes: an application to in vitro fertilisation. Soc Sci Med. 1999, 48 (4): 11.CrossRef Ryan M: Using conjoint analysis to take account of patient preferences and go beyond health outcomes: an application to in vitro fertilisation. Soc Sci Med. 1999, 48 (4): 11.CrossRef
19.
go back to reference Ryan M, Farrar S: Briefing Paper for the NHS in Scotland, No. 6: Conjoint Analysis: a New Tool for Eliciting Patients' Preferences. Health Economics Research Unit. 1995, University of Aberdeen Ryan M, Farrar S: Briefing Paper for the NHS in Scotland, No. 6: Conjoint Analysis: a New Tool for Eliciting Patients' Preferences. Health Economics Research Unit. 1995, University of Aberdeen
20.
go back to reference Ratcliffe J, Buxton M: Patients' preferences regarding the process and outcomes of life-saving technology, An application of conjoint analysis to liver transplantation. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1999, 15 (2): 340-51.PubMed Ratcliffe J, Buxton M: Patients' preferences regarding the process and outcomes of life-saving technology, An application of conjoint analysis to liver transplantation. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1999, 15 (2): 340-51.PubMed
21.
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: 14. Ryan M: A role for conjoint analysis in technology assessment in health care?. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1999, 15: 14.
22.
go back to reference Brusch M, Baier D, Treppa A: Conjoint Analysis and Stimulus Presentation - a Comparison of Alternative Methods. Classification, Clustering, and Analysis. Edited by: Jajuga EK. 2002, Berlin: Springer, 203-210.CrossRef Brusch M, Baier D, Treppa A: Conjoint Analysis and Stimulus Presentation - a Comparison of Alternative Methods. Classification, Clustering, and Analysis. Edited by: Jajuga EK. 2002, Berlin: Springer, 203-210.CrossRef
23.
go back to reference Melles T, Laumann R, Holling H: Validity and Reliability of Online Conjoint Analysis. Proceedings of the Sawtooth Software Conference. 2000, WA: Sequim Melles T, Laumann R, Holling H: Validity and Reliability of Online Conjoint Analysis. Proceedings of the Sawtooth Software Conference. 2000, WA: Sequim
24.
go back to reference Orme BK, Alpert MI, Christensen E: Assessing the Validity of Conjoint Analysis - Continued. Research Paper Series. 1997, Sawtooth Software Ltd Orme BK, Alpert MI, Christensen E: Assessing the Validity of Conjoint Analysis - Continued. Research Paper Series. 1997, Sawtooth Software Ltd
25.
go back to reference De-Bekker-Grob E, Ryan M, Gerard K: Discrete choice Health experiments in health economics: a review of the literature. Health Econ. 2012, 21: 27.CrossRef De-Bekker-Grob E, Ryan M, Gerard K: Discrete choice Health experiments in health economics: a review of the literature. Health Econ. 2012, 21: 27.CrossRef
26.
go back to reference Orme BK: Formulating Attributes and Levels in Conjoint Analysis. Research Paper Series. 2002, Sawtooth Software Ltd Orme BK: Formulating Attributes and Levels in Conjoint Analysis. Research Paper Series. 2002, Sawtooth Software Ltd
27.
go back to reference Teijlingen AH: The importance of pilot studies. Social Research Update. 2001, 35: Teijlingen AH: The importance of pilot studies. Social Research Update. 2001, 35:
28.
go back to reference Addelman S: Symmetrical and assmmetrical fractional factorial plans. Technometrics. 1962, 4: 11. Addelman S: Symmetrical and assmmetrical fractional factorial plans. Technometrics. 1962, 4: 11.
29.
go back to reference Nakash R, Hutton JL, Jørstad-Stein EC, Gates S, Lamb SE: Maximising response to postal questionnaires – A systematic review of randomised trials in health research. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2006, 6 (5): Nakash R, Hutton JL, Jørstad-Stein EC, Gates S, Lamb SE: Maximising response to postal questionnaires – A systematic review of randomised trials in health research. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2006, 6 (5):
30.
go back to reference Taylor R: Interpretation of the Correlation Coefficient: a Basic Review. Journal of Diagnostic Medical Sonography. 1999, 6: 35-39.CrossRef Taylor R: Interpretation of the Correlation Coefficient: a Basic Review. Journal of Diagnostic Medical Sonography. 1999, 6: 35-39.CrossRef
31.
go back to reference Marsh K, Dolan P, Kempster J, Lugon M:Prioritizing investments in public health: a multi-criteria decision analysis. J Public Health. 2012, Marsh K, Dolan P, Kempster J, Lugon M:Prioritizing investments in public health: a multi-criteria decision analysis. J Public Health. 2012,
32.
go back to reference Mauskopf JA: Principles of good practice for budget impact analysis: report of the ISPOR Task Force on good research practices–budget impact analysis. Value Health. 2007, 10 (5): 336-47. 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2007.00187.x.CrossRefPubMed Mauskopf JA: Principles of good practice for budget impact analysis: report of the ISPOR Task Force on good research practices–budget impact analysis. Value Health. 2007, 10 (5): 336-47. 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2007.00187.x.CrossRefPubMed
33.
go back to reference Mauskopf JA, Paul JE, Grant DM, Stergachis A: The role of cost-consequence analysis in healthcare decision-making. Pharmaco Economics. 1998, 13 (3): 11.CrossRef Mauskopf JA, Paul JE, Grant DM, Stergachis A: The role of cost-consequence analysis in healthcare decision-making. Pharmaco Economics. 1998, 13 (3): 11.CrossRef
34.
go back to reference McColl E, Jacoby A, Thomas L, Soutter J, Bamford C, Steen N, Thomas R, Harvey E, Garratt A, Bond J: Design and use of questionnaires: a review of best practice applicable to surveys in health service staff and patients. Health Technol Assess. 2001, 5 (31): McColl E, Jacoby A, Thomas L, Soutter J, Bamford C, Steen N, Thomas R, Harvey E, Garratt A, Bond J: Design and use of questionnaires: a review of best practice applicable to surveys in health service staff and patients. Health Technol Assess. 2001, 5 (31):
35.
go back to reference Ryan M, McIntosh E, Dean T, Old P: Trade –offs between location and waiting times in the provision of health care: the case of elective surgery on the Isle of Wight. 2000, 22 (2): 8. Ryan M, McIntosh E, Dean T, Old P: Trade –offs between location and waiting times in the provision of health care: the case of elective surgery on the Isle of Wight. 2000, 22 (2): 8.
36.
go back to reference Severin V, Louviere J, Finn A: The stability of shopping choices over time and across countries. J Retailing. 2001, 77: 17-10.1016/S0022-4359(00)00048-8.CrossRef Severin V, Louviere J, Finn A: The stability of shopping choices over time and across countries. J Retailing. 2001, 77: 17-10.1016/S0022-4359(00)00048-8.CrossRef
37.
go back to reference Mentzakis EAZJ: An investigation of individual preferences: consistency across incentives and stability over time. ECON Working paper:. 0702012, University of Zurich Mentzakis EAZJ: An investigation of individual preferences: consistency across incentives and stability over time. ECON Working paper:. 0702012, University of Zurich
Metadata
Title
Exploring the feasibility of Conjoint Analysis as a tool for prioritizing innovations for implementation
Authors
Katherine Farley
Carl Thompson
Andria Hanbury
Duncan Chambers
Publication date
01-12-2013
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Implementation Science / Issue 1/2013
Electronic ISSN: 1748-5908
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-8-56

Other articles of this Issue 1/2013

Implementation Science 1/2013 Go to the issue