1
|
Veldwijk J, Smith IP, Oliveri S, Petrocchi S, Smith MY, Lanzoni L, Janssens R, Huys I, de Wit GA, Groothuis-Oudshoorn CGM. Comparing Discrete Choice Experiment with Swing Weighting to Estimate Attribute Relative Importance: A Case Study in Lung Cancer Patient Preferences. Med Decis Making 2024; 44:203-216. [PMID: 38178591 PMCID: PMC10865764 DOI: 10.1177/0272989x231222421] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/01/2022] [Accepted: 12/06/2023] [Indexed: 01/06/2024]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Discrete choice experiments (DCE) are commonly used to elicit patient preferences and to determine the relative importance of attributes but can be complex and costly to administer. Simpler methods that measure relative importance exist, such as swing weighting with direct rating (SW-DR), but there is little empirical evidence comparing the two. This study aimed to directly compare attribute relative importance rankings and weights elicited using a DCE and SW-DR. METHODS A total of 307 patients with non-small-cell lung cancer in Italy and Belgium completed an online survey assessing preferences for cancer treatment using DCE and SW-DR. The relative importance of the attributes was determined using a random parameter logit model for the DCE and rank order centroid method (ROC) for SW-DR. Differences in relative importance ranking and weights between the methods were assessed using Cohen's weighted kappa and Dirichlet regression. Feedback on ease of understanding and answering the 2 tasks was also collected. RESULTS Most respondents (>65%) found both tasks (very) easy to understand and answer. The same attribute, survival, was ranked most important irrespective of the methods applied. The overall ranking of the attributes on an aggregate level differed significantly between DCE and SW-ROC (P < 0.01). Greater differences in attribute weights between attributes were reported in DCE compared with SW-DR (P < 0.01). Agreement between the individual-level attribute ranking across methods was moderate (weighted Kappa 0.53-0.55). CONCLUSION Significant differences in attribute importance between DCE and SW-DR were found. Respondents reported both methods being relatively easy to understand and answer. Further studies confirming these findings are warranted. Such studies will help to provide accurate guidance for methods selection when studying relative attribute importance across a wide array of preference-relevant decisions. HIGHLIGHTS Both DCEs and SW tasks can be used to determine attribute relative importance rankings and weights; however, little evidence exists empirically comparing these methods in terms of outcomes or respondent usability.Most respondents found the DCE and SW tasks very easy or easy to understand and answer.A direct comparison of DCE and SW found significant differences in attribute importance rankings and weights as well as a greater spread in the DCE-derived attribute relative importance weights.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- J. Veldwijk
- Erasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
- Erasmus Choice Modelling Centre, Erasmus University, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
- Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Julius Centrum, Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - I. P. Smith
- Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Julius Centrum, Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - S. Oliveri
- Applied Research Division for Cognitive and Psychological Science, IEO, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - S. Petrocchi
- Applied Research Division for Cognitive and Psychological Science, IEO, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - M. Y. Smith
- Alexion AstraZeneca Rare Disease, Boston, MA, USA
- Department of Regulatory and Quality Sciences, School of Pharmacy, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | - L. Lanzoni
- Applied Research Division for Cognitive and Psychological Science, IEO, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - R. Janssens
- Department of Pharmaceutical and Pharmacological Sciences, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | - I. Huys
- Department of Pharmaceutical and Pharmacological Sciences, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | - G. A. de Wit
- Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Julius Centrum, Utrecht, the Netherlands
- Department of Health Sciences, Faculty of Science, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam & Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - C. G. M Groothuis-Oudshoorn
- Health Technology and Services Research (HTSR), Faculty of Behavioural Management and Social Sciences, University of Twente, Enschede, the Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|