Cargando…

Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: Past, Present and Future

OBJECTIVES: Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) are increasingly advocated as a way to quantify preferences for health. However, increasing support does not necessarily result in increasing quality. Although specific reviews have been conducted in certain contexts, there exists no recent description...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Soekhai, Vikas, de Bekker-Grob, Esther W., Ellis, Alan R., Vass, Caroline M.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer International Publishing 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6386055/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30392040
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40273-018-0734-2
_version_ 1783397312716865536
author Soekhai, Vikas
de Bekker-Grob, Esther W.
Ellis, Alan R.
Vass, Caroline M.
author_facet Soekhai, Vikas
de Bekker-Grob, Esther W.
Ellis, Alan R.
Vass, Caroline M.
author_sort Soekhai, Vikas
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) are increasingly advocated as a way to quantify preferences for health. However, increasing support does not necessarily result in increasing quality. Although specific reviews have been conducted in certain contexts, there exists no recent description of the general state of the science of health-related DCEs. The aim of this paper was to update prior reviews (1990–2012), to identify all health-related DCEs and to provide a description of trends, current practice and future challenges. METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted to identify health-related empirical DCEs published between 2013 and 2017. The search strategy and data extraction replicated prior reviews to allow the reporting of trends, although additional extraction fields were incorporated. RESULTS: Of the 7877 abstracts generated, 301 studies met the inclusion criteria and underwent data extraction. In general, the total number of DCEs per year continued to increase, with broader areas of application and increased geographic scope. Studies reported using more sophisticated designs (e.g. D-efficient) with associated software (e.g. Ngene). The trend towards using more sophisticated econometric models also continued. However, many studies presented sophisticated methods with insufficient detail. Qualitative research methods continued to be a popular approach for identifying attributes and levels. CONCLUSIONS: The use of empirical DCEs in health economics continues to grow. However, inadequate reporting of methodological details inhibits quality assessment. This may reduce decision-makers’ confidence in results and their ability to act on the findings. How and when to integrate health-related DCE outcomes into decision-making remains an important area for future research. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1007/s40273-018-0734-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6386055
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher Springer International Publishing
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-63860552019-03-12 Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: Past, Present and Future Soekhai, Vikas de Bekker-Grob, Esther W. Ellis, Alan R. Vass, Caroline M. Pharmacoeconomics Systematic Review OBJECTIVES: Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) are increasingly advocated as a way to quantify preferences for health. However, increasing support does not necessarily result in increasing quality. Although specific reviews have been conducted in certain contexts, there exists no recent description of the general state of the science of health-related DCEs. The aim of this paper was to update prior reviews (1990–2012), to identify all health-related DCEs and to provide a description of trends, current practice and future challenges. METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted to identify health-related empirical DCEs published between 2013 and 2017. The search strategy and data extraction replicated prior reviews to allow the reporting of trends, although additional extraction fields were incorporated. RESULTS: Of the 7877 abstracts generated, 301 studies met the inclusion criteria and underwent data extraction. In general, the total number of DCEs per year continued to increase, with broader areas of application and increased geographic scope. Studies reported using more sophisticated designs (e.g. D-efficient) with associated software (e.g. Ngene). The trend towards using more sophisticated econometric models also continued. However, many studies presented sophisticated methods with insufficient detail. Qualitative research methods continued to be a popular approach for identifying attributes and levels. CONCLUSIONS: The use of empirical DCEs in health economics continues to grow. However, inadequate reporting of methodological details inhibits quality assessment. This may reduce decision-makers’ confidence in results and their ability to act on the findings. How and when to integrate health-related DCE outcomes into decision-making remains an important area for future research. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1007/s40273-018-0734-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. Springer International Publishing 2018-11-03 2019 /pmc/articles/PMC6386055/ /pubmed/30392040 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40273-018-0734-2 Text en © The Author(s) 2018 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
spellingShingle Systematic Review
Soekhai, Vikas
de Bekker-Grob, Esther W.
Ellis, Alan R.
Vass, Caroline M.
Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: Past, Present and Future
title Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: Past, Present and Future
title_full Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: Past, Present and Future
title_fullStr Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: Past, Present and Future
title_full_unstemmed Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: Past, Present and Future
title_short Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: Past, Present and Future
title_sort discrete choice experiments in health economics: past, present and future
topic Systematic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6386055/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30392040
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40273-018-0734-2
work_keys_str_mv AT soekhaivikas discretechoiceexperimentsinhealtheconomicspastpresentandfuture
AT debekkergrobestherw discretechoiceexperimentsinhealtheconomicspastpresentandfuture
AT ellisalanr discretechoiceexperimentsinhealtheconomicspastpresentandfuture
AT vasscarolinem discretechoiceexperimentsinhealtheconomicspastpresentandfuture