Comparison of Rating Scale, Time Tradeoff, and Conjoint Analysis Methods for Assessment of Preferences in Prostate Cancer. (October 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Kaplan, Robert M.; Crespi, Catherine M.; Dahan, Ely; Saucedo, Josemanuel D.; Pagan, Casey; Saigal, Christopher S.
• Is Part Of: Medical decision making. Volume 39:Number 7(2019)
• Page Start: 816
• Page End: 826
• Publication Date: 2019-10
• Subjects: conjoint analysis -- medical decision making -- prostate cancer -- ratings scales -- time tradeoff -- utility assessment; Medical policy -- Periodicals; Clinical medicine -- Decision making -- Periodicals; Medicine -- Periodicals; Médecine clinique -- Prise de décision -- Périodiques; 362.1
• DOI: 10.1177/0272989X19873667
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0272-989X

Abstract

Background . Conjoint analysis is widely used in studies of consumer preference but has only recently been applied to measure patient utilities for health outcomes. We compared the reliability, feasibility, and internal and predictive validity of conjoint scaling methods against better established rating scale and time tradeoff methods for assessing prostate cancer utilities in men at risk for prostate cancer.Methods . In total, 194 men who were biopsy negative for prostate cancer were randomly assigned to complete 2 preference assessment modules, either conjoint analysis and a rating scale module or conjoint analysis and a time tradeoff module. Each participant's most important attribute was identified and evaluated in relation to age group (age <65, age 65 and older), education (high school, some college, college graduate), race/ethnicity (white, black, Latino), and relationship status (in significant relationship v. not). The methods were also evaluated in terms of ease of use and satisfaction.Results . Rating scales were rated as easiest to use and respondents were more satisfied with rating scales and conjoint in comparison to time tradeoffs. Rating scales and conjoint measures demonstrated significantly higher internal validity compared to time tradeoff when evaluated through R 2 of the fitted utility function. The 3 methods were similar in terms of predictive validity, but conjoint analysis outperformed the rating scale method when patients were presented with novel combinations of attribute levels (68% correct v. 43%, P = 0.003).Conclusions . Rating scales and conjoint analysis exercises offer greater ease of use and higher satisfaction when measuring patient preferences in men biopsied for prostate cancer in comparison to time tradeoff exercises. Conjoint analysis may be a more robust approach to preference measurement for men at risk for prostate cancer.