Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2012 Jan;27(1):45-50.
doi: 10.1007/s11606-011-1837-z. Epub 2011 Aug 26.

Conjoint analysis versus rating and ranking for values elicitation and clarification in colorectal cancer screening

Michael P Pignone  1 , Alison T Brenner, Sarah Hawley, Stacey L Sheridan, Carmen L Lewis, Daniel E Jonas, Kirsten Howard
Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Conjoint analysis versus rating and ranking for values elicitation and clarification in colorectal cancer screening

Michael P Pignone et al. J Gen Intern Med. 2012 Jan.

Abstract

Purpose: To compare two techniques for eliciting and clarifying patient values for decision making about colorectal cancer (CRC) screening: choice-based conjoint analysis and a rating and ranking task.

Methods: Using our decision lab registry and university e-mail lists, we recruited average risk adults ages 48-75 for a written, mailed survey. Eligible participants were given basic information about CRC screening and six attributes of CRC screening tests, then randomized to complete either a choice-based conjoint analysis with 16 discrete choice tasks or a rating and ranking task. The main outcome was the most important attribute, as determined from conjoint analysis or participant ranking. Conjoint analysis-based most important attribute was determined from individual patient-level utilities generated using multinomial logistic regression and hierarchical Bayesian modeling.

Results: Of the 114 eligible participants, 104 completed and returned questionnaires. Mean age was 57 (range 48-73), 70% were female, 88% were white, 71% were college graduates, and 62% were up to date with CRC screening. Ability to reduce CRC incidence and mortality was the most frequent most important attribute for both the conjoint analysis (56% of respondents) and rating/ranking (76% of respondents) groups, and these proportions differed significantly between groups (absolute difference 20%, 95% CI 3%, 37%, p =0.03). There were no significant differences between groups in proportion with clear values (p = 0.352), intent to be screened (p = 0.226) or unlabelled test preference (p = 0.521)

Conclusions: Choice-based conjoint analysis produced somewhat different patterns of attribute importance than a rating and ranking task, but had little effect on other outcomes.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Study flow.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Braddock CH, 3rd, Edwards KA, Hasenberg NM, Laidley TL, Levinson W. Informed decision making in outpatient practice: time to get back to basics. JAMA. 1999;282(24):2313–20. doi: 10.1001/jama.282.24.2313. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Sheridan SL, Harris RP, Woolf SH. Shared Decision-Making Workgroup of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Shared decision making about screening and chemoprevention. A suggested approach from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Am J Prev Med. 2004;26(1):56–66. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2003.09.011. - DOI - PubMed
    1. O’Connor AM, Bennett CL, Stacey D, Barry M, Col NF, Eden KB, et al. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009;8(3):CD001431. - PubMed
    1. Pignone M, Harris R, Kinsinger L. Videotape-based decision aid for colon cancer screening. A randomized, controlled trial. Ann Intern Med. 2000;133(10):761–9. - PubMed
    1. Elwyn G, O’Connor A, Stacey D, Volk R, Edwards A, Coulter A, et al. Developing a quality criteria framework for patient decision aids: online international Delphi consensus process. BMJ. 2006;333(7565):417. doi: 10.1136/bmj.38926.629329.AE. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types