A Framework for Instrument Development of a Choice Experiment: An Application to Type 2 Diabetes

Ellen M. Janssen (), Jodi B. Segal and John F. P. Bridges
Additional contact information
Ellen M. Janssen: Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health
Jodi B. Segal: Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health
John F. P. Bridges: Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health

The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, 2016, vol. 9, issue 5, No 10, 465-479

Abstract: Abstract Objective Choice experiments are increasingly used to obtain patient preference information for regulatory benefit–risk assessments. Despite the importance of instrument design, there remains a paucity of literature applying good research principles. We applied a novel framework for instrument development of a choice experiment to measure type 2 diabetes mellitus treatment preferences. Methods Applying the framework, we used evidence synthesis, expert consultation, stakeholder engagement, pretest interviews, and pilot testing to develop a best–worst scaling (BWS) and discrete choice experiment (DCE). We synthesized attributes from published DCEs for type 2 diabetes, consulted clinical experts, engaged a national advisory board, conducted local cognitive interviews, and pilot tested a national survey. Results From published DCEs (n = 17), ten attribute categories were extracted with cost (n = 11) having the highest relative attribute importance (RAI) (range 6–10). Clinical consultation and stakeholder engagement identified six attributes for inclusion. Cognitive pretesting with local diabetes patients (n = 25) ensured comprehension of the choice experiment. Pilot testing with patients from a national sample (n = 50) identified nausea as most important (RAI for DCE: 10 [95 % CI 8.5–11.5]; RAI for BWS: 10 [95 % CI 8.9–11.1]). The developed choice experiment contained five attributes (A1c decrease, blood glucose stability, low blood glucose, nausea, additional medicine, and cost). Conclusion The framework for instrument development of a choice experiment included five stages of development and incorporated multiple stakeholder perspectives. Further comparisons of instrument development approaches are needed to identify best practices. To facilitate comparisons, researchers need to be encouraged to publish or discuss their instrument development strategies and findings.

Date: 2016
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (6)

Downloads: (external link)
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40271-016-0170-3 Abstract (text/html)
Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:spr:patien:v:9:y:2016:i:5:d:10.1007_s40271-016-0170-3

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.springer.com/economics/journal/40271

DOI: 10.1007/s40271-016-0170-3

Access Statistics for this article

The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research is currently edited by Christopher I. Carswell

More articles in The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research from Springer, International Academy of Health Preference Research
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().