Measuring preferences for health care interventions using conjoint analysis: an application to HIV testing.

OBJECTIVE To examine preferences for HIV test methods using conjoint analysis, a method used to measure economic preferences (utilities). DATA SOURCES Self-administered surveys at four publicly funded HIV testing locations in San Francisco, California, between November 1999 and February 2000 (n = 365, 96 percent response rate). STUDY DESIGN We defined six important attributes of HIV tests and their levels (location, price, ease of collection, timeliness/accuracy, privacy/anonymity, and counseling). A fractional factorial design was used to develop scenarios that consisted of combinations of attribute levels. Respondents were asked 11 questions about whether they would choose "Test A or B" based on these scenarios. DATA ANALYSIS We used random effects probit models to estimate utilities for testing attributes. Since price was included as an attribute, we were able to estimate willingness to pay, which provides a standardized measure for use in economic evaluations. We used extensive analyses to examine the reliability and validity of the results, including analyses of: (1) preference consistency, (2) willingness to trade among attributes, and (3) consistency with theoretical predictions. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS Respondents most preferred tests that were accurate/timely and private/anonymous, whereas they had relatively lower preferences for in-person counseling. Respondents were willing to pay an additional $35 for immediate, highly accurate results; however, they had a strong disutility for receiving immediate but less accurate results. By using conjoint analysis to analyze new combinations of attributes, we found that respondents would most prefer instant, highly accurate home tests, even though they are not currently available in the U.S. Respondents were willing to pay $39 for a highly accurate, instant home test. CONCLUSIONS The method of conjoint analysis enabled us to estimate utilities for specific attributes of HIV tests as well as the overall utility obtained from various HIV tests, including tests that are under consideration but not yet available. Conjoint analysis offers an approach that can be useful for measuring and understanding the value of other health care goods, services, and interventions.

[1]  R. Luce,et al.  Simultaneous conjoint measurement: A new type of fundamental measurement , 1964 .

[2]  A. Scott,et al.  Agency in health care. Examining patients' preferences for attributes of the doctor-patient relationship. , 1998, Journal of health economics.

[3]  J. Louviere,et al.  Combining Revealed and Stated Preference Methods for Valuing Environmental Amenities , 1994 .

[4]  D. Hensher,et al.  Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Applications , 2000 .

[5]  Joel Huber,et al.  A General Method for Constructing Efficient Choice Designs , 1996 .

[6]  W. Kassler,et al.  On‐site, rapid HIV testing with same‐day results and counseling , 1997, AIDS.

[7]  T. Coates,et al.  Home sample collection for HIV testing. , 2000, JAMA.

[8]  K. Phillips,et al.  Willingness to use instant home HIV tests: data from the California Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance Survey. , 2003, American journal of preventive medicine.

[9]  D. McCaffrey,et al.  The care of HIV-infected adults in the United States. HIV Cost and Services Utilization Study Consortium. , 1998, The New England journal of medicine.

[10]  S. M. Lewis,et al.  Orthogonal Fractional Factorial Designs , 1986 .

[11]  C. Nachtsheim Orthogonal Fractional Factorial Designs , 1985 .

[12]  Paul De Civita,et al.  Eliciting Stated Preferences: An Application to Willingness to Pay for Longevity , 1998, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[13]  Amiram Gafni,et al.  When Do the "Dollars" Make Sense? , 1996, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[14]  J. Catania,et al.  Who plans to be tested for HIV or would get tested if no one could find out the results? , 1995, American journal of preventive medicine.

[15]  M. Buxton,et al.  Preference measurement using conjoint methods: an empirical investigation of reliability. , 2000, Health economics.

[16]  M Ryan,et al.  Using conjoint analysis to elicit preferences for health care , 2000, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[17]  Paul De Civita,et al.  Eliciting Stated Health Preferences , 1998 .

[18]  Kathryn A Phillips,et al.  Measuring what people value: a comparison of "attitude" and "preference" surveys. , 2002, Health services research.

[19]  H. Urnovitz,et al.  Urine antibody tests: new insights into the dynamics of HIV-1 infection. , 1999, Clinical chemistry.

[20]  M. Buxton,et al.  Magnetic resonance imaging for the investigation of knee injuries: an investigation of preferences. , 1998, Health economics.

[21]  K. Phillips,et al.  Subjective knowledge of AIDS and use of HIV testing. , 1993, American journal of public health.

[22]  J. Dilley,et al.  Deciding Where and How to Be Tested for HIV: What Matters Most? , 2001, Journal of acquired immune deficiency syndromes.

[23]  M Ryan,et al.  Using conjoint analysis to assess women's preferences for miscarriage management. , 1997, Health economics.

[24]  C. Hoff,et al.  Predictors of repeat HIV testing among gay and bisexual men , 1995, AIDS.

[25]  J. Ratcliffe,et al.  PATIENTS' PREFERENCES REGARDING THE PROCESS AND OUTCOMES OF LIFE-SAVING TECHNOLOGY , 1999, International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care.

[26]  P. Shackley,et al.  Willingness to pay for antenatal carrier screening for cystic fibrosis. , 1995, Health economics.

[27]  T. Coates,et al.  Potential use of home HIV testing. , 1995, The New England journal of medicine.

[28]  Joel Huber,et al.  The Importance of Utility Balance in Efficient Choice Designs , 1996 .

[29]  M. Ryan,et al.  A ROLE FOR CONJOINT ANALYSIS IN TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT IN HEALTH CARE? , 1999, International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care.

[30]  M. Ryan,et al.  Using Consumer Preferences in Health Care Decision Making: The Application of Conjoint Analysis , 1996 .

[31]  J. Ratcliffe THE USE OF CONJOINT ANALYSIS TO ELICIT WILLINGNESS-TO-PAY VALUES , 2000, International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care.

[32]  M Ryan,et al.  Methodological issues in the application of conjoint analysis in health care. , 1998, Health economics.

[33]  Joel Huber,et al.  Pricing environmental health risks: survey assessments of risk-risk and risk-dollar trade-offs for chronic bronchitis☆ , 1991 .

[34]  Jagdip Singh,et al.  Medical decision-making and the patient: understanding preference patterns for growth hormone therapy using conjoint analysis. , 1998, Medical care.

[35]  M Ryan,et al.  Response-ordering effects: a methodological issue in conjoint analysis. , 1999, Health economics.

[36]  R. Ferri Oral mucosal transudate testing for HIV-1 antibodies: a clinical update. , 1998, The Journal of the Association of Nurses in AIDS Care : JANAC.

[37]  P. Shackley,et al.  Does "process utility" exist? A case study of willingness to pay for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. , 1997, Social science & medicine.