X hits on this document

PDF document

A CHECKLIST FOR CONJOINT ANALYSIS APPLICATIONS IN HEALTH: REPORT OF THE ISPOR CONJOINT ANALYSIS GOOD ... - page 15 / 17

56 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

15 / 17

Conclusions

This report presents a checklist for good research practices for the application of conjoint analysis in health and medicine and is based on the consensus and international experience of the Task Force members. It is important to note that this consensus relates to the questions raised as part of the checklist and not the answers. Given that conjoint analysis is an extremely flexible tool and represents an interdisciplinary approach to understanding the preferences of patients and other stakeholders, it is unlikely that any consensus on methods will be reached. Such variation in methods is not unique to conjoint analysis; for example, there is a hearty debate concerning risk adjustment methods in outcomes research. Furthermore, unlike cost-effectiveness analysis where a global view of health care interventions is taken, conjoint analysis aims to be both specific and descriptive. Hence, we believe that a “reference case” for conjoint analysis is neither necessary nor likely to emerge.

Acknowledgements: This project was completed under the guidance of the ISPOR Patient Reported Outcomes & Patient Preferences Special Interest Group’s Patient Preference Methods (PPM) – Conjoint Analysis Working Group. We are grateful for the current and past members of this working group and associated reference group. We are particularly indebted to Elizabeth Molsen and Marilyn Dix Smith for challenging and empowering the Conjoint Analysis Task Force and PPM – CA working group to achieve and to broaden the methods available to outcomes researchers worldwide.

Source of financial support: None.

References:

  • 1.

    Bridges, J, Kinter, E, Kidane, L, Heinzen, R, and McCormick, C (2008) “Things are looking up since we started listening to patients: Recent trends in the application of conjoint analysis in health 1970-2007” The Patient – Patient Centered Outcomes Research, 1(4), 273-282.

  • 2.

    Ryan M, Gerard K. 2003. Using discrete choice experiments to value health care programmes: current practice and future research reflections. Appl Health Econ Health Policy, 2:55–64.

  • 3.

    Hanley N, Ryan M, Wright R. Estimating the monetary value of health care: lessons from environmental economics. Health Econ 2003;12(1):3-16.

  • 4.

    Johnson FR, Mansfield C. (2008) Survey-Design and Analytical Strategies for Better Healthcare Stated-Choice Studies. The Patient – Patient Centered Outcomes Research, 1(4), 299-308.

  • 5.

    Wild D, Grove A, Martin M, Eremenco S, McElroy S, Verjee-Lorenz A, Erikson P; ISPOR Task Force for Translation and Cultural Adaptation. Principles of Good Practice for the Translation and Cultural Adaptation Process for Patient-Reported Outcomes (PRO) Measures: report of the ISPOR Task Force for Translation and Cultural Adaptation. Value Health. 2005 Mar-Apr;8(2):94-104

  • 6.

    Mauskopf JA, Sullivan SD, Annemans L, et al. Principles of Good Practice for Budget Impact Analysis: Report of the ISPOR Task Force on Good Research Practices – Budget Impact Analysis. Value in Health 2007;10;336-47

  • 7.

    Peterson AM, Nau DP, Cramer JA, et al. A checklist for medication compliance and persistence studies using retrospective databases. Value Health 2007;10(1):3-12

  • 8.

    Bridges JFP. Stated-preference methods in health care evaluation: an emerging methodological paradigm in health economics. Applied Health Economics and Health Policy 2003;2:213-24.

  • 9.

    Bridges J, Onukwugha E, Johnson FR, Hauber AB (2007) “Patient Preference Methods – A Patient Centered Evaluation Paradigm”, ISPOR Connections, 13(6): 4-7.

ISPOR Conjoint Analysis in Health Task Force Report

Page 15

Document info
Document views56
Page views56
Page last viewedFri Dec 09 05:00:31 UTC 2016
Pages17
Paragraphs241
Words8632

Comments