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
. 2023 May;16(3):239-253.
doi: 10.1007/s40271-023-00615-0. Epub 2023 Feb 13.

Comparing Outcomes of a Discrete Choice Experiment and Case 2 Best-Worst Scaling: An Application to Neuromuscular Disease Treatment

Vikas Soekhai  1   2   3 , Bas Donkers  4   5 , Jennifer Viberg Johansson  6   7 , Cecilia Jimenez-Moreno  8   9 , Cathy Anne Pinto  10 , G Ardine de Wit  11 , Esther de Bekker-Grob  4   12
Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Comparing Outcomes of a Discrete Choice Experiment and Case 2 Best-Worst Scaling: An Application to Neuromuscular Disease Treatment

Vikas Soekhai et al. Patient. 2023 May.

Abstract

Background and objectives: Case 2 best-worst scaling (BWS-2) is an increasingly popular method to elicit patient preferences. Because BWS-2 potentially has a lower cognitive burden compared with discrete choice experiments, the aim of this study was to compare treatment preference weights and relative importance scores.

Methods: Patients with neuromuscular diseases completed an online survey at two different moments in time, completing one method per occasion. Patients were randomly assigned to either first a discrete choice experiment or BWS-2. Attributes included: muscle strength, energy endurance, balance, cognition, chance of blurry vision, and chance of liver damage. Multinomial logit was used to calculate overall relative importance scores and latent class logit was used to estimate heterogeneous preference weights and to calculate the relative importance scores of the attributes for each latent class.

Results: A total of 140 patients were included for analyses. Overall relative importance scores showed differences in attribute importance rankings between a discrete choice experiment and BWS-2. Latent class analyses indicated three latent classes for both methods, with a specific class in both the discrete choice experiment and BWS-2 in which (avoiding) liver damage was the most important attribute. Ex-post analyses showed that classes differed in sex, age, level of education, and disease status. The discrete choice experiment was easier to understand compared with BWS-2.

Conclusions: This study showed that using a discrete choice experiment and BWS-2 leads to different outcomes, both in preference weights as well as in relative importance scores, which might have been caused by the different framing of risks in BWS-2. However, a latent class analysis revealed similar latent classes between methods. Careful consideration about method selection is required, while keeping the specific decision context in mind and pilot testing the methods.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this manuscript. This text and its contents reflect the PREFER project’s view and not the view of IMI, the European Union, or the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Example of case 2 best-worst scaling and discrete choice experiment choice tasks
Figure 2
Figure 2
Overall relative importance score of attributes for discrete choice experiment (DCE) and case 2 best-worst scaling (BWS-2)
Figure 3
Figure 3
Relative importance of attributes for the discrete choice experiment (a) and case 2 best-worst scaling (b)
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Hoos A, Anderson J, Boutin M, et al. Partnering with patients in the development and lifecycle of medicines: a call for action. Ther Innov Regul Sci. 2015;49(6):929–939. doi: 10.1177/2168479015580384. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Anderson RM, Funnell MM. Patient empowerment: reflections on the challenge of fostering the adoption of a new paradigm. Patient Educ Couns. 2005;57(2):153–157. doi: 10.1016/J.PEC.2004.05.008. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Smith MY, Hammad TA, Metcalf M, et al. Patient engagement at a tipping point: the need for cultural change across patient, sponsor, and regulator stakeholders: insights from the DIA Conference, “Patient Engagement in Benefit Risk Assessment Throughout the Life Cycle of Medical Products”. Ther Innov Regul Sci. 2016;50(5):546–553. doi: 10.1177/2168479016662902. - DOI - PubMed
    1. de Bekker-Grob EW, Berlin C, Levitan B, et al. Giving patients’ preferences a voice in medical treatment life cycle: the PREFER Public-Private Project. Patient. 2017;10(3):263–266. doi: 10.1007/s40271-017-0222-3. - DOI - PubMed
    1. US Food and Drug Administration. The voice of the patient: a series of reports from FDA’s Patient-Focused Drug Development Initiative. 2017. https://www.fda.gov/industry/prescription-drug-user-fee-amendments/voice.... Accessed 8 Jun 2021.

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources