[en] BACKGROUND: Attribute selection represents an important step in the development of discrete-choice experiments (DCEs), but is often poorly reported. In some situations, the number of attributes identified may exceed what one may find possible to pilot in a DCE. Hence, there is a need to gain insight into methods to select attributes in order to construct the final list of attributes. This study aims to test the feasibility of using the nominal group technique (NGT) to select attributes for DCEs. METHODS: Patient group discussions (4-8 participants) were convened to prioritize a list of 12 potentially important attributes for osteoporosis drug therapy. The NGT consisted of three steps: an individual ranking of the 12 attributes by importance from 1 to 12, a group discussion on each of the attributes, including a group review of the aggregate score of the initial rankings, and a second ranking task of the same attributes. RESULTS: Twenty-six osteoporotic patients participated in five NGT sessions. Most (80%) of the patients changed their ranking after the discussion. However, the average initial and final ranking did not differ markedly. In the final ranking, the most important medication attributes were effectiveness, side effects, and frequency and mode of administration. Some (15%) of the patients did not correctly rank from 1 to 12, and the order of attributes did play a role in the ranking. CONCLUSION: The NGT is feasible for selecting attributes for DCEs. Although in the context of this study, the NGT session had little impact on prioritizing attributes, this approach is rigorous, transparent, and improves the face validity of DCEs. Additional research in other contexts (different decisional problems or different diseases) is needed to determine the added value of the NGT session, to assess the optimal ranking/rating method with control of ordering effects, and to compare the attributes selected with the different approaches.
Disciplines :
General & internal medicine
Author, co-author :
Hiligsmann, Mickaël ; Université de Liège - ULiège > Département des sciences de la santé publique > Département des sciences de la santé publique
VAN DURME, Caroline ; Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Liège - CHU > Rhumatologie
Geusens, Piet
Dellaert, Benedict Gc
Dirksen, Carmen D.
van der Weijden, Trudy
Reginster, Jean-Yves ; Université de Liège - ULiège > Département des sciences de la santé publique > Santé publique, Epidémiologie et Economie de la santé
Boonen, Annelies
Language :
English
Title :
Nominal group technique to select attributes for discrete choice experiments: an example for drug treatment choice in osteoporosis.
Bridges JF, Hauber AB, Marshall D, etal. Conjoint analysis applications in health-a checklist: a report of the ISPOR Good Research Practices for Conjoint Analysis Task Force. Value Health. 2011;14:403-413.
Lancsar E, Louviere J. Conducting discrete choice experiments to inform healthcare decision making: a user's guide. Pharmacoeconomics. 2008;26:661-677.
Ryan M, Bate A, Eastmond CJ, Ludbrook A. Use of discrete choice experiments to elicit preferences. Qual Health Care. 2001;10 Suppl 1:i55-i60.
Ryan M, Gerard K, Amaya-Amaya M. Using Discrete Choice Experiments to Value Health and Health Care. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer; 2008.
Coast J, Al-Janabi H, Sutton EJ, etal. Using qualitative methods for attribute development for discrete choice experiments: issues and recommendations. Health Econ. 2012;21:730-741.
Louviere J, Flynn TN, Carson R. Discrete choice experiments are not conjoint analysis. Journal of Choice Modelling. 2010;3:57-72.
Rohrbaugh J. Improving the quality of group judgment: social judgment analysis and the nominal group technique. Organ Behav Hum Perform. 1981;28:272-288.
[No authors listed]. Nominal group technique is reliable for deciding research priorities. BMJ. 2000;320(7240):E.
Vella K, Goldfrad C, Rowan K, Bion J, Black N. Use of consensus development to establish national research priorities in critical care. BMJ. 2000;320:976-980.
Weiss TW, Gold DT, Silverman SL, McHorney CA. An evaluation of patient preferences for osteoporosis medication attributes: results from the PREFER-US study. Curr Med Res Opin. 2006;22:949-960.
Duarte JW, Bolge SC, Sen SS. An evaluation of patients' preferences for osteoporosis medications and their attributes: the PREFER-International study. Clin Ther. 2007;29:488-503.
Darba J, Restovic G, Kaskens L, etal. Patient preferences for osteoporosis in Spain: a discrete choice experiment. Osteoporos Int. 2011;22:1947-1954.
de Bekker-Grob EW, Essink-Bot ML, Meerding WJ, Pols HA, Koes BW, Steyerberg EW. Patients' preferences for osteoporosis drug treatment: a discrete choice experiment. Osteoporos Int. 2008;19:1029-1037.
Fraenkel L, Gulanski B, Wittink D. Patient treatment preferences for osteoporosis. Arthritis Rheum. 2006;55:729-735.
Lee S, Glendenning P, Inderjeeth CA. Efficacy, side effects and route of administration are more important than frequency of dosing of anti-osteoporosis treatments in determining patient adherence: a critical review of published articles from 1970 to 2009. Osteoporos Int. 2011;22:741-753.
Rizzoli R, Reginster JY, Boonen S, etal. Adverse reactions and drug-drug interactions in the management of women with postmenopausal osteoporosis. Calcif Tissue Int. 2011;89:91-104.
Drennan V, Walters K, Lenihan P, Cohen S, Myerson S, Iliffe S. Priorities in identifying unmet need in older people attending general practice: a nominal group technique study. Fam Pract. 2007;24:454-460.
de Bekker-Grob EW, Ryan M, Gerard K. Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature. Health Econ. 2012;21:145-172.
Marshall D, Bridges JF, Hauber B, etal. Conjoint analysis applications in health-how are studies being designed and reported? An update on current practice in the published literature between 2005 and 2008. Patient. 2010;3:249-256.
Rabenda V, Hiligsmann M, Reginster JY. Poor adherence to oral bisphosphonate treatment and its consequences: a review of the evidence. Expert Opin Pharmacother. 2009;10:2303-2315.
Hiligsmann M, Rabenda V, Bruyere O, Reginster JY. The clinical and economic burden of non-adherence with oral bisphosphonates in osteoporotic patients. Health Policy. 2010;96:170-177.
Hiligsmann M, McGowan B, Bennett K, Barry M, Reginster JY. The clinical and economic burden of poor adherence and persistence with osteoporosis medications in Ireland. Value Health. 2012;15:604-612.
Osterberg L, Blaschke T. Adherence to medication. N Engl J Med. 2005;353:487-497.
Montori VM, Shah ND, Pencille LJ, etal. Use of a decision aid to improve treatment decisions in osteoporosis: the osteoporosis choice randomized trial. Am J Med. 2011;124:549-556.
Elwyn G, Edwards A, Britten N. What information do patients need about medicines? "Doing prescribing": how doctors can be more effective. BMJ. 2003;327:864-867.
Ryan M, Farrar S. Using conjoint analysis to elicit preferences for health care. BMJ. 2000;320:1530-1533.
Rose JM, Bliemer MCJ, Hensher DA, Collins AT. Designing efficient stated choice experiments in the presence of reference alternatives. Transport Res B-Meth. 2008;42:395-406.