Adaptive Choice-Based Conjoint Analysis

Conjoint analysis (CA) has emerged as an important approach to the assessment of health service preferences. This article examines Adaptive Choice-Based Conjoint Analysis (ACBC) and reviews available evidence comparing ACBC with conventional approaches to CA. ACBC surveys more closely approximate the decision-making processes that influence real-world choices. Informants begin ACBC surveys by completing a build-your-own (BYO) task identifying the level of each attribute that they prefer. The ACBC software composes a series of attribute combinations clustering around each participant’s BYO choices. During the Screener section, informants decide whether each of these concepts is a possibility or not. Probe questions determine whether attribute levels consistently included in or excluded from each informant’s Screener section choices reflect ‘Unacceptable’ or ‘Must Have’ simplifying heuristics. Finally, concepts identified as possibilities during the Screener section are carried forward to a Choice Tournament. The winning concept in each Choice Tournament set advances to the next choice set until a winner is determined.A review of randomized trials and cross-over studies suggests that, although ACBC surveys require more time than conventional approaches to CA, informants find ACBC surveys more engaging. In most studies, ACBC surveys yield lower standard errors, improved prediction of hold-out task choices, and better estimates of real-world product decisions than conventional choice-based CA surveys.

[1]  M. Ryan Using conjoint analysis to take account of patient preferences and go beyond health outcomes: an application to in vitro fertilisation. , 1999, Social science & medicine.

[2]  J Lomas,et al.  Reluctant Rationers: Public Input to Health Care Priorities , 1997, Journal of health services research & policy.

[3]  J. Callahan,et al.  The impact of client treatment preferences on outcome: a meta-analysis. , 2009, Journal of clinical psychology.

[4]  John F P Bridges,et al.  Things are Looking up Since We Started Listening to Patients: Trends in the Application of Conjoint Analysis in Health 1982-2007. , 2008, The patient.

[5]  C Chen,et al.  Patient preferences for acute pain treatment. , 2004, British journal of anaesthesia.

[6]  L. Fraenkel,et al.  Patients’ Preferences for Treatment of Hepatitis C , 2010, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[7]  Emil H Schemitsch,et al.  Association between industry funding and statistically significant pro-industry findings in medical and surgical randomized trials. , 2004, CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne.

[8]  Bryan K. Orme,et al.  A New Approach to Adaptive CBC , 2007 .

[9]  Min Ding,et al.  NON-COMPENSATORY (AND COMPENSATORY) MODELS OF CONSIDERATION-SET DECISIONS , 2009 .

[10]  Mandy Ryan,et al.  Discrete choice experiments in health care , 2004, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[11]  Chen-Ying Huang,et al.  Intuition and Deliberation: Two Systems for Strategizing in the Brain , 2009, Science.

[12]  Christine Poulos,et al.  Mothers' preferences and willingness to pay for vaccinating daughters against human papillomavirus. , 2010, Vaccine.

[13]  Chris Salisbury,et al.  Patients’ preferences within randomised trials: systematic review and patient level meta-analysis , 2008, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[14]  Steven H. Cohen,et al.  Market segmentation with choice-based conjoint analysis , 1995 .

[15]  Greg M. Allenby,et al.  A Choice Model with Conjunctive, Disjunctive, and Compensatory Screening Rules , 2004 .

[16]  Mahzarin R. Banaji,et al.  Using ConJoint AnAlysis to deteCt disCriminAtion: reveAling Covert PreferenCes from overt ChoiCes , 2009 .

[17]  B. Orme Getting Started with Conjoint Analysis: Strategies for Product Design and Pricing Research , 2005 .

[18]  P. Zweifel,et al.  Validity and Reliability of Willingness-to-Pay Estimates: Evidence from Two Overlapping Discrete-Choice Experiments. , 2008, The patient.

[19]  Andreas Herrmann,et al.  Conjoint Measurement: Methods and Applications , 2000 .

[20]  P. Zweifel,et al.  Measuring willingness-to-pay for risk reduction: an application of conjoint analysis. , 2002, Health economics.

[21]  John F P Bridges,et al.  Stated preference methods in health care evaluation: an emerging methodological paradigm in health economics. , 2003, Applied health economics and health policy.

[22]  Conjoint Analysis at the Individual Patient Level , 2008, The patient.

[23]  A. Nierenberg,et al.  Industry sponsorship and financial conflict of interest in the reporting of clinical trials in psychiatry. , 2005, The American journal of psychiatry.

[24]  K. Mukherjee A dual system model of preferences under risk. , 2010, Psychological review.

[25]  John M. Rose,et al.  Applied Choice Analysis: A Primer , 2005 .

[26]  L. Fraenkel,et al.  Patient willingness to take teriparatide. , 2007, Patient education and counseling.

[27]  Why Not Ask? , 2012, Nursing times.

[28]  M. Halme,et al.  Patients’ Preferences for Generic and Branded Over-the-Counter Medicines , 2009, The patient.

[29]  B. Orme Fine-Tuning CBC and Adaptive CBC Questionnaires , 2009 .

[30]  A. Stiggelbout,et al.  Individual quality of life: adaptive conjoint analysis as an alternative for direct weighting? , 2008, Quality of Life Research.

[31]  Geoff Norman,et al.  Dual processing and diagnostic errors , 2009, Advances in health sciences education : theory and practice.

[32]  Bryan K. Orme,et al.  Testing Adaptive CBC : Shorter Questionnaires and BYO vs . “ Most Likelies ” , 2008 .

[33]  E. Nolte,et al.  Public involvement policies in health: exploring their conceptual basis , 2006, Health Economics, Policy and Law.

[34]  Pat Croskerry,et al.  A universal model of diagnostic reasoning. , 2009, Academic medicine : journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges.

[35]  M. F. Luce,et al.  Constructive Consumer Choice Processes , 1998 .

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

[37]  Richard Miller,et al.  Dealing with Product Similarity in Conjoint Simulations , 2007 .

[38]  F. Johnson,et al.  Factors That Affect Adherence to Bipolar Disorder Treatments: A Stated-Preference Approach , 2007, Medical care.

[39]  Steven H. Cohen,et al.  Latent Class Models for Conjoint Analysis , 2007 .

[40]  L. Gluud Bias in clinical intervention research. , 2006, American journal of epidemiology.

[41]  J. Orlin,et al.  “ MUST HAVE ” ASPECTS VS . TRADEOFF ASPECTS IN MODELS OF CUSTOMER DECISIONS , 2006 .

[42]  Greg M. Allenby,et al.  Incorporating Prior Knowledge into the Analysis of Conjoint Studies , 1995 .

[43]  M Ryan,et al.  Eliciting public preferences for healthcare: a systematic review of techniques. , 2001, Health technology assessment.

[44]  J. Hay,et al.  Using conjoint analysis to assess depression treatment preferences among low-income Latinos. , 2004, Psychiatric services.

[45]  Jordan J. Louviere,et al.  Modeling the choices of individual decision-makers by combining efficient choice experiment designs with extra preference information , 2008 .

[46]  Emily Lancsar,et al.  Several methods to investigate relative attribute impact in stated preference experiments. , 2007, Social science & medicine.

[47]  A. Neville,et al.  Modeling the Problem-based Learning Preferences of McMaster University Undergraduate Medical Students Using a Discrete Choice Conjoint Experiment , 2006, Advances in health sciences education : theory and practice.

[48]  P. Lenk,et al.  Hierarchical Bayes Conjoint Analysis: Recovery of Partworth Heterogeneity from Reduced Experimental Designs , 1996 .

[49]  Paul Slovic,et al.  Affect, risk, and decision making. , 2005, Health psychology : official journal of the Division of Health Psychology, American Psychological Association.

[50]  Greg M. Allenby,et al.  Adjusting Choice Models to Better Predict Market Behavior , 2005 .

[51]  A. Shearer,et al.  Patient preferences among third agent HIV medications: a US and German perspective , 2007, AIDS care.

[52]  Mark J. Garratt,et al.  Efficient Experimental Design with Marketing Research Applications , 1994 .

[53]  C. Sherbourne,et al.  Treatment preferences among depressed primary care patients , 2000, Journal of General Internal Medicine.

[54]  Lesley Cunningham,et al.  Modeling the Bullying Prevention Program Preferences of Educators: A Discrete Choice Conjoint Experiment , 2009, Journal of abnormal child psychology.

[55]  Mandy Ryan,et al.  Using discrete choice experiments to go beyond clinical outcomes when evaluating clinical practice. , 2005, Journal of evaluation in clinical practice.

[56]  L. Rajmil Health measurement scales. A practical guide to their development and use, 3rd ed , 2005 .

[57]  Greg M. Allenby,et al.  A Hierarchical Bayes Model of Primary and Secondary Demand , 1998 .

[58]  D. Kahneman,et al.  Representativeness revisited: Attribute substitution in intuitive judgment. , 2002 .

[59]  John M. Rose,et al.  Applied Choice Analysis: List of tables , 2005 .

[60]  M. Ryan,et al.  Using discrete choice experiments to value health and health care , 2008 .

[61]  J. Jekel PDQ Epidemiology , 1989, The Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine.

[62]  Elizabeth T. Kinter,et al.  Things are Looking up Since We Started Listening to Patients , 2008, The patient.

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

[64]  R. Epstein,et al.  Encouraging patients with depressive symptoms to seek care: a mixed methods approach to message development. , 2010, Patient education and counseling.

[65]  P. Zweifel,et al.  Validity and Reliability of Willingness-to-Pay Estimates , 2008 .

[66]  Ann Russell,et al.  Using Conjoint Analysis to Model the Preferences of Different Patient Segments for Attributes of Patient-Centered Care , 2008, The patient.

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

[68]  Daniel M. Oppenheimer,et al.  Heuristics made easy: an effort-reduction framework. , 2008, Psychological bulletin.

[69]  L. Fraenkel,et al.  Patient treatment preferences for osteoporosis. , 2006, Arthritis and rheumatism.

[70]  Charles E. Cunningham,et al.  Modeling the Information Preferences of Parents of Children with Mental Health Problems: A Discrete Choice Conjoint Experiment , 2008, Journal of abnormal child psychology.

[71]  Pat Croskerry,et al.  Clinical cognition and diagnostic error: applications of a dual process model of reasoning , 2009, Advances in health sciences education : theory and practice.

[72]  Nick Hanley,et al.  Estimating the monetary value of health care: lessons from environmental economics. , 2003, Health economics.

[73]  Charles E. Cunningham,et al.  Providing Information to Parents of Children with Mental Health Problems: A Discrete Choice Conjoint Analysis of Professional Preferences , 2009, Journal of abnormal child psychology.

[74]  John M. Rose,et al.  Applied Choice Analysis: List of tables , 2005 .

[75]  Jordan J. Louviere,et al.  Conjoint Preference Elicitation Methods in the Broader Context of Random Utility Theory Preference Elicitation Methods , 2007 .

[76]  Vikki Entwistle,et al.  Rationalising the 'irrational': a think aloud study of discrete choice experiment responses. , 2009, Health economics.

[77]  Mandy Ryan,et al.  Using discrete choice experiments to value health and health care , 2008 .

[78]  John F. P. Bridges,et al.  Future challenges for the economic evaluation of healthcare , 2012, PharmacoEconomics.

[79]  J. Louviere,et al.  Conducting Discrete Choice Experiments to Inform Healthcare Decision Making , 2012, PharmacoEconomics.

[80]  F. Gibbons,et al.  Reason and reaction: the utility of a dual-focus, dual-processing perspective on promotion and prevention of adolescent health risk behaviour. , 2009, British journal of health psychology.

[81]  R. Tourangeau,et al.  Sensitive questions in surveys. , 2007, Psychological bulletin.

[82]  A. Glöckner,et al.  Multiple-reason decision making based on automatic processing. , 2008, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[83]  J L Bootman,et al.  Physician prescribing decisions: the effects of situational involvement and task complexity on information acquisition and decision making. , 1993, Social science & medicine.

[84]  Frank Berkers,et al.  Patient Perception , Preference and Participation Adaptive Conjoint Analysis as individual preference assessment tool : Feasibility through the internet and reliability of preferences , 2010 .

[85]  J. Concato,et al.  Treatment options in knee osteoarthritis: the patient's perspective. , 2004, Archives of internal medicine.

[86]  E. Peters,et al.  Age differences in dual information‐processing modes , 2008, Cancer.

[87]  A. Gustafsson,et al.  Conjoint Analysis as an Instrument of Market Research Practice , 2000 .