A labelled discrete choice experiment adds realism to the choices presented: preferences for surveillance tests for Barrett esophagus
- PMID: 19454022
- PMCID: PMC2695479
- DOI: 10.1186/1471-2288-9-31
A labelled discrete choice experiment adds realism to the choices presented: preferences for surveillance tests for Barrett esophagus
Abstract
Background: Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) allow systematic assessment of preferences by asking respondents to choose between scenarios. We conducted a labelled discrete choice experiment with realistic choices to investigate patients' trade-offs between the expected health gains and the burden of testing in surveillance of Barrett esophagus (BE).
Methods: Fifteen choice scenarios were selected based on 2 attributes: 1) type of test (endoscopy and two less burdensome fictitious tests), 2) frequency of surveillance. Each test-frequency combination was associated with its own realistic decrease in risk of dying from esophageal adenocarcinoma. A conditional logit model was fitted.
Results: Of 297 eligible patients (155 BE and 142 with non-specific upper GI symptoms), 247 completed the questionnaire (84%). Patients preferred surveillance to no surveillance. Current surveillance schemes of once every 1-2 years were amongst the most preferred alternatives. Higher health gains were preferred over those with lower health gains, except when test frequencies exceeded once a year. For similar health gains, patients preferred video-capsule over saliva swab and least preferred endoscopy.
Conclusion: This first example of a labelled DCE using realistic scenarios in a healthcare context shows that such experiments are feasible. A comparison of labelled and unlabelled designs taking into account setting and research question is recommended.
Figures



Similar articles
-
Surveillance in Barrett's esophagus: an audit of practice.Dig Dis Sci. 2010 Jun;55(6):1615-21. doi: 10.1007/s10620-009-0917-y. Epub 2009 Aug 11. Dig Dis Sci. 2010. PMID: 19669878
-
Different perceptions of the burden of upper GI endoscopy: an empirical study in three patient groups.Qual Life Res. 2007 Oct;16(8):1309-18. doi: 10.1007/s11136-007-9239-8. Epub 2007 Jul 17. Qual Life Res. 2007. PMID: 17634755 Free PMC article.
-
Screening and surveillance for Barrett esophagus in high-risk groups: a cost-utility analysis.Ann Intern Med. 2003 Feb 4;138(3):176-86. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-138-3-200302040-00009. Ann Intern Med. 2003. PMID: 12558356
-
Current management of Barrett esophagus and esophageal adenocarcinoma.Cleve Clin J Med. 2019 Nov;86(11):724-732. doi: 10.3949/ccjm.86a.18106. Cleve Clin J Med. 2019. PMID: 31710585 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Accounting for Scale Heterogeneity in Healthcare-Related Discrete Choice Experiments when Comparing Stated Preferences: A Systematic Review.Patient. 2018 Oct;11(5):475-488. doi: 10.1007/s40271-018-0304-x. Patient. 2018. PMID: 29492903
Cited by
-
Participatory Value Evaluation (PVE): A New Preference-Elicitation Method for Decision Making in Healthcare.Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2024 Mar;22(2):145-154. doi: 10.1007/s40258-023-00859-9. Epub 2023 Dec 16. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2024. PMID: 38103158 Review.
-
Stated preferences of doctors for choosing a job in rural areas of Peru: a discrete choice experiment.PLoS One. 2012;7(12):e50567. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0050567. Epub 2012 Dec 18. PLoS One. 2012. PMID: 23272065 Free PMC article.
-
What determines patient preferences for treating low risk basal cell carcinoma when comparing surgery vs imiquimod? A discrete choice experiment survey from the SINS trial.BMC Dermatol. 2012 Oct 4;12:19. doi: 10.1186/1471-5945-12-19. BMC Dermatol. 2012. PMID: 23035730 Free PMC article. Clinical Trial.
-
Preference for endoscopic screening of upper gastrointestinal cancer among Chinese rural residents: a discrete choice experiment.Front Oncol. 2022 Jul 27;12:917622. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2022.917622. eCollection 2022. Front Oncol. 2022. PMID: 35965546 Free PMC article.
-
What attributes should be included in a discrete choice experiment related to health technologies? A systematic literature review.PLoS One. 2019 Jul 18;14(7):e0219905. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0219905. eCollection 2019. PLoS One. 2019. PMID: 31318926 Free PMC article.
References
-
- Drummond MF, O'Brien B, Stoddart GL, Torrance GW. Methods for the Economic evaluation of Health Care Programmes. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1997.
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources