» Articles » PMID: 38341385

How to Present a Decision Object in Health Preference Research: Attributes and Levels, the Decision Model, and the Descriptive Framework

Overview
Journal Patient
Specialty Health Services
Date 2024 Feb 10
PMID 38341385
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

In health preference research (HPR) studies, data are generated by participants'/subjects' decisions. When developing an HPR study, it is therefore important to have a clear understanding of the components of a decision and how those components stimulate participant behavior. To obtain valid and reliable results, study designers must sufficiently describe the decision model and its components. HPR studies require a detailed examination of the decision criteria, detailed documentation of the descriptive framework, and specification of hypotheses. The objects that stimulate subjects' decisions in HPR studies are defined by attributes and attribute levels. Any limitations in the identification and presentation of attributes and levels can negatively affect preference elicitation, the quality of the HPR data, and study results. This practical guide shows how to link the HPR question to an underlying decision model. It covers how to (1) construct a descriptive framework that presents relevant characteristics of a decision object and (2) specify the research hypotheses. The paper outlines steps and available methods to achieve all this, including the methods' advantages and limitations.

Citing Articles

Examining the Effect of Depicting a Patient Affected by a Negative Reimbursement Decision in Healthcare on Public Disagreement with the Decision.

de Bruijn A, van Don M, Knies S, Brouwer W, Reckers-Droog V Pharmacoeconomics. 2024; 42(8):879-894.

PMID: 38796810 PMC: 11249434. DOI: 10.1007/s40273-024-01386-8.


Eliciting Older Cancer Patients' Preferences for Follow-Up Care to Inform a Primary Healthcare Follow-Up Model in China: A Discrete Choice Experiment.

Geng J, Li R, Wang X, Xu R, Liu J, Jiang H Patient. 2024; 17(5):589-601.

PMID: 38702574 PMC: 11343794. DOI: 10.1007/s40271-024-00697-4.


Evaluating the Preferences and Willingness-to-Pay for Oral Antidiabetic Drugs Among Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus in China: A Discrete Choice Experiment.

Chuang L, Zhang H, Hong T, Xie S Patient. 2024; 17(5):565-574.

PMID: 38642244 DOI: 10.1007/s40271-024-00694-7.


Consumer Preferences for a Healthcare Appointment Reminder in Australia: A Discrete Choice Experiment.

Selim S, Senanayake S, McPhail S, Carter H, Naicker S, Kularatna S Patient. 2024; 17(5):537-550.

PMID: 38605246 PMC: 11343896. DOI: 10.1007/s40271-024-00692-9.

References
1.
Dolan P, Olsen J, Menzel P, Richardson J . An inquiry into the different perspectives that can be used when eliciting preferences in health. Health Econ. 2003; 12(7):545-51. DOI: 10.1002/hec.760. View

2.
Coast J, Horrocks S . Developing attributes and levels for discrete choice experiments using qualitative methods. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2007; 12(1):25-30. DOI: 10.1258/135581907779497602. View

3.
Dixon-Woods M, Shaw R, Agarwal S, Smith J . The problem of appraising qualitative research. Qual Saf Health Care. 2004; 13(3):223-5. PMC: 1743851. DOI: 10.1136/qhc.13.3.223. View

4.
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

5.
Flynn T . Valuing citizen and patient preferences in health: recent developments in three types of best-worst scaling. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2010; 10(3):259-67. DOI: 10.1586/erp.10.29. View