» Articles » PMID: 35595961

Improvements to Survey Design from Pilot Testing a Discrete-Choice Experiment of the Preferences of Persons Living with HIV for Long-Acting Antiretroviral Therapies

Overview
Journal Patient
Specialty Health Services
Date 2022 May 20
PMID 35595961
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background And Objective: Development of clear and effective discrete-choice experiment surveys is an important step toward ensuring accurate and usable preference results. Pretest interviews and pilot testing are common in the development of discrete-choice experiments, and it is important for researchers to report details of survey changes resulting from patient feedback elicited in pilot work. This paper details pilot testing of an online discrete-choice experiment to elicit preferences for long-acting antiretroviral therapies among patients with HIV.

Methods: The survey included an introduction to hypothetical treatment options, descriptions of attributes, comprehension questions, instructions for completing a discrete-choice experiment, a discrete-choice experiment with 17 choice tasks, and questions about personal characteristics. We piloted the survey with 50 respondents over ten waves. Each wave incorporated design improvements based on observations made during the previous wave. Respondents completed the online survey while screen sharing with a researcher, allowing interactive discussion. We developed a scheme for assessing and categorizing the survey changes.

Results: Changes to the pilot were categorized by ways they impacted aspects of the discrete-choice experiment or the likely quality of resulting data. The four categories of impact are: understanding of attributes, underlying discrete-choice experiment and understanding of the choice question, collection of individual characteristics hypothesized to affect preference, and changes that improved clarity and usability of the survey without directly affecting the other categories (e.g., survey navigation and instructional clarity, formatting changes).

Conclusions: Detailed attention to the respondent experience in this large pilot allowed survey improvements that will likely reduce ambiguity, ensure more accurate capture of patient preferences and, ultimately, improve product development for long-acting antiretroviral therapies.

Citing Articles

Patient preferences for long-acting HIV treatment: a preference heterogeneity assessment.

Saldarriaga E, Hauber B, Barthold D, Brah A, Tran J, Marconi V BMC Infect Dis. 2025; 25(1):237.

PMID: 39972307 PMC: 11841254. DOI: 10.1186/s12879-025-10546-w.


Key informant views on potential acceptability and feasibility of long-acting antiretroviral treatment for HIV in Kenya.

Kaggiah A, Maina C, Kinuthia J, Barthold D, Hauber B, Tran J BMC Infect Dis. 2024; 24(1):415.

PMID: 38641565 PMC: 11027348. DOI: 10.1186/s12879-024-09309-w.


Pretesting Discrete-Choice Experiments: A Guide for Researchers.

Campoamor N, Guerrini C, Brooks W, Bridges J, Crossnohere N Patient. 2024; 17(2):109-120.

PMID: 38363501 PMC: 10894089. DOI: 10.1007/s40271-024-00672-z.


Preferences in the Design and Delivery of Neurodevelopmental Follow-Up Care for Children: A Systematic Review of Discrete Choice Experiments.

Sharma P, Kularatna S, Abell B, Eagleson K, Vo L, Halahakone U Patient Prefer Adherence. 2023; 17:2325-2341.

PMID: 37745632 PMC: 10517687. DOI: 10.2147/PPA.S425578.


U.S. patient preferences for long-acting HIV treatment: a discrete choice experiment.

Graham S, Barthold D, Hauber B, Brah A, Saldarriaga E, Collier A J Int AIDS Soc. 2023; 26 Suppl 2:e26099.

PMID: 37439051 PMC: 10338996. DOI: 10.1002/jia2.26099.


References
1.
Orkin C, Arasteh K, Gorgolas Hernandez-Mora M, Pokrovsky V, Overton E, Girard P . Long-Acting Cabotegravir and Rilpivirine after Oral Induction for HIV-1 Infection. N Engl J Med. 2020; 382(12):1124-1135. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1909512. View

2.
Bridges J, Hauber A, Marshall D, Lloyd A, Prosser L, Regier D . Conjoint analysis applications in health--a checklist: a report of the ISPOR Good Research Practices for Conjoint Analysis Task Force. Value Health. 2011; 14(4):403-13. DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2010.11.013. View

3.
Hollin I, Craig B, Coast J, Beusterien K, Vass C, DiSantostefano R . Reporting Formative Qualitative Research to Support the Development of Quantitative Preference Study Protocols and Corresponding Survey Instruments: Guidelines for Authors and Reviewers. Patient. 2019; 13(1):121-136. DOI: 10.1007/s40271-019-00401-x. View

4.
Reed Johnson F, Lancsar E, Marshall D, Kilambi V, Muhlbacher A, Regier D . Constructing experimental designs for discrete-choice experiments: report of the ISPOR Conjoint Analysis Experimental Design Good Research Practices Task Force. Value Health. 2013; 16(1):3-13. DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2012.08.2223. View

5.
Kapadia S, Grant R, German S, Singh B, Davidow A, Swaminathan S . HIV virologic response better with single-tablet once daily regimens compared to multiple-tablet daily regimens. SAGE Open Med. 2018; 6:2050312118816919. PMC: 6295695. DOI: 10.1177/2050312118816919. View