Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Comparing Analytic Hierarchy Process and Discrete-Choice Experiment to Elicit Patient Preferences for Treatment Characteristics in Age-Related Macular Degeneration.
Danner, Marion; Vennedey, Vera; Hiligsmann, Mickaël; Fauser, Sascha; Gross, Christian; Stock, Stephanie.
Afiliação
  • Danner M; Institute for Health Economics and Clinical Epidemiology, University Hospital of Cologne (AöR), Cologne, Germany. Electronic address: marion.danner@uk-koeln.de.
  • Vennedey V; Institute for Health Economics and Clinical Epidemiology, University Hospital of Cologne (AöR), Cologne, Germany.
  • Hiligsmann M; Department of Health Services Research, CAPHRI School for Primary Care and Public Health, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
  • Fauser S; Center for Ophthalmology, University Hospital of Cologne (AöR), Cologne, Germany.
  • Gross C; Institute for Health Economics and Clinical Epidemiology, University Hospital of Cologne (AöR), Cologne, Germany.
  • Stock S; Institute for Health Economics and Clinical Epidemiology, University Hospital of Cologne (AöR), Cologne, Germany.
Value Health ; 20(8): 1166-1173, 2017 09.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28964450
ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND:

In this study, we conducted an analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and a discrete choice experiment (DCE) to elicit the preferences of patients with age-related macular degeneration using identical attributes and levels.

OBJECTIVES:

To compare preference-based weights for age-related macular degeneration treatment attributes and levels generated by two elicitation methods. The properties of both methods were assessed, including ease of instrument use.

METHODS:

A DCE and an AHP experiment were designed on the basis of five attributes. Preference-based weights were generated using the matrix multiplication method for attributes and levels in AHP and a mixed multinomial logit model for levels in the DCE. Attribute importance was further compared using coefficient (DCE) and weight (AHP) level ranges. The questionnaire difficulty was rated on a qualitative scale. Patients were asked to think aloud while providing their judgments.

RESULTS:

AHP and DCE generated similar results regarding levels, stressing a preference for visual improvement, frequent monitoring, on-demand and less frequent injection schemes, approved drugs, and mild side effects. Attribute weights derived on the basis of level ranges led to a ranking that was opposite to the AHP directly calculated attribute weights. For example, visual function ranked first in the AHP and last on the basis of level ranges.

CONCLUSIONS:

The results across the methods were similar, with one exception the directly measured AHP attribute weights were different from the level-based interpretation of attribute importance in both DCE and AHP. The dependence/independence of attribute importance on level ranges in DCE and AHP, respectively, should be taken into account when choosing a method to support decision making.
Assuntos
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Comportamento de Escolha / Tomada de Decisões / Preferência do Paciente / Degeneração Macular Tipo de estudo: Prognostic_studies / Qualitative_research / Risk_factors_studies Limite: Aged / Female / Humans / Male / Middle aged Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2017 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Comportamento de Escolha / Tomada de Decisões / Preferência do Paciente / Degeneração Macular Tipo de estudo: Prognostic_studies / Qualitative_research / Risk_factors_studies Limite: Aged / Female / Humans / Male / Middle aged Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2017 Tipo de documento: Article