Format

Send to:

Choose Destination
See comment in PubMed Commons below
J Gen Intern Med. 2012 Jan;27(1):45-50. doi: 10.1007/s11606-011-1837-z. Epub 2011 Aug 26.

Conjoint analysis versus rating and ranking for values elicitation and clarification in colorectal cancer screening.

Author information

  • 1Department of Medicine, Cecil Sheps Center for Health Services Research and Lineberger Cancer Center, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA. pignone@med.unc.edu

Abstract

PURPOSE:

To compare two techniques for eliciting and clarifying patient values for decision making about colorectal cancer (CRC) screening: choice-based conjoint analysis and a rating and ranking task.

METHODS:

Using our decision lab registry and university e-mail lists, we recruited average risk adults ages 48-75 for a written, mailed survey. Eligible participants were given basic information about CRC screening and six attributes of CRC screening tests, then randomized to complete either a choice-based conjoint analysis with 16 discrete choice tasks or a rating and ranking task. The main outcome was the most important attribute, as determined from conjoint analysis or participant ranking. Conjoint analysis-based most important attribute was determined from individual patient-level utilities generated using multinomial logistic regression and hierarchical Bayesian modeling.

RESULTS:

Of the 114 eligible participants, 104 completed and returned questionnaires. Mean age was 57 (range 48-73), 70% were female, 88% were white, 71% were college graduates, and 62% were up to date with CRC screening. Ability to reduce CRC incidence and mortality was the most frequent most important attribute for both the conjoint analysis (56% of respondents) and rating/ranking (76% of respondents) groups, and these proportions differed significantly between groups (absolute difference 20%, 95% CI 3%, 37%, p =0.03). There were no significant differences between groups in proportion with clear values (p = 0.352), intent to be screened (p = 0.226) or unlabelled test preference (p = 0.521)

CONCLUSIONS:

Choice-based conjoint analysis produced somewhat different patterns of attribute importance than a rating and ranking task, but had little effect on other outcomes.

PMID:
21870192
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
PMCID:
PMC3250548
Free PMC Article
PubMed Commons home

PubMed Commons

0 comments
How to join PubMed Commons

    Supplemental Content

    Full text links

    Icon for Springer Icon for PubMed Central
    Loading ...
    Write to the Help Desk