Discrete choice experiment versus swing-weighting: A head-to-head comparison of diabetic patient preferences for glucose-monitoring devices

Author:

Whichello ChiaraORCID,Smith Ian,Veldwijk Jorien,de Wit G. Ardine,Rutten- van Molken Maureen P. M. H.,de Bekker-Grob Esther W.ORCID

Abstract

Introduction Limited evidence exists for how patient preference elicitation methods compare directly. This study compares a discrete choice experiment (DCE) and swing-weighting (SW) by eliciting preferences for glucose-monitoring devices in a population of diabetes patients. Methods A sample of Dutch adults with type 1 or 2 diabetes (n = 459) completed an online survey assessing their preferences for glucose-monitoring devices, consisting of both a DCE and a SW exercise. Half the sample completed the DCE first; the other half completed the SW first. For the DCE, the relative importance of the attributes of the devices was determined using a mixed-logit model. For the SW, the relative importance of the attributes was based on ranks and points allocated to the ‘swing’ from the worst to the best level of the attribute. The preference outcomes and self-reported response burden were directly compared between the two methods. Results Participants reported they perceived the DCE to be easier to understand and answer compared to the SW. Both methods revealed that cost and precision of the device were the most important attributes. However, the DCE had a 14.9-fold difference between the most and least important attribute, while the SW had a 1.4-fold difference. The weights derived from the SW were almost evenly distributed between all attributes. Conclusions The DCE was better received by participants, and generated larger weight differences between each attribute level, making it the more informative method in our case study. This method comparison provides further evidence of the degree of method suitability and trustworthiness.

Funder

Innovative Medicines Initiative

Publisher

Public Library of Science (PLoS)

Subject

Multidisciplinary

Reference39 articles.

1. Patient Engagement at a Tipping Point—The Need for Cultural Change Across Patient, Sponsor, and Regulator Stakeholders: Insights From the DIA Conference;M. Smith;Therapeutic Innovation & Regulatory Science,2016

2. Giving Patients’ Preferences a Voice in Medical Treatment Life Cycle: The PREFER Public–Private Project;E. de Bekker-Grob;The Patient: Patient Centred Outcomes Research,2017

3. Medical Device Innovation Consortium (MDIC), "Medical Device Innovation Consortium (MDIC) Patient Centered Benefit-Risk Project Report: A Framework for Incorporating Information on Patient Preferences regarding Benefit and Risk into Regulatory Assessments of New Medical Technology," 2015.

4. NICE Pathways, "Managing relapse of myeloma," NICE, 2019.

5. Factors and Situations Affecting the Value of Patient Preference Studies: Semi-Structured Interviews in Europe and the US;C. Whichello;Frontiers in Pharmacology,2019

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3