Developing attributes for discrete choice experiments in health: a systematic literature review and case study of alcohol misuse interventions.
Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) become increasingly popular to value outcomes for health economic studies and gradually gain acceptance as an input into policy decisions. Developing attributes is a key aspect for the design of DCEs, as their results may misguide decision-makers if they are based on an inappropriate set of attributes. However, the area lacks guidance, and current health-related DCE studies vary considerably in their methods of attribute development, with the consequent danger of providing an unreliable input for policy decisions. The aim of this article is to inform the progress toward a more systematic approach to attribute development for DCE studies in health. A systematic review of the published health-related DCE literature was conducted to lay the foundations for a generic framework which was tested in a case study of alcohol misuse interventions. Four stages of a general attribute development process emerged: (i) raw data collection; (ii) data reduction; (iii) removing inappropriate attributes; and (iv) wording. The case study compared and contrasted a qualitative and mixed-methods approach for the development of attributes for DCEs in the area of alcohol misuse interventions. This article provides a reference point for the design of future DCE experiments in health.
Health Economics Research Group, Brunel University , Middlesex, UK.
Timea Mariann
TM
Helter
European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Institute for Prospective Technological Studies , Seville, Spain.
Christian Ernst Heinrich
CE
Boehler
Alcohol misuse; discrete choice experiments; systematic review
Health Econ. 2000 Mar;9(2):137-48
10721015
Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2002 Winter;18(1):139-44
11987437
Health Econ. 1997 May-Jun;6(3):261-73
9226144
J Health Serv Res Policy. 2007 Jan;12 (1):25-30
17244394
Health Policy Plan. 2009 Mar;24(2):151-8
19112071
BMC Womens Health. 2008 Jan 14;8:2
18194523
Soc Sci Med. 1999 Feb;48(4):535-46
10075178
Fam Pract. 2007 Jun;24(3):276-82
17478438
Health Serv Res. 2010 Feb;45(1):212-29
19780851
Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2002 Apr;14 (4):429-33
11943959
Health Policy. 2001 Sep;57(3):193-204
11459626
Pharmacoeconomics. 2008;26(8):661-77
18620460
Pharmacoeconomics. 2010;28(6):507-20
20387912
Value Health. 2011 Jun;14(4):403-13
21669364
J Health Serv Res Policy. 2000 Oct;5(4):214-8
11184957
Soc Sci Med. 2010 May;70(9):1317-25
20167406
Value Health. 2013 Jan-Feb;16(1):3-13
23337210
Ear Hear. 2007 Dec;28(6):842-9
17982370
Health Econ. 2002 Jul;11(5):457-65
12112494
Health Econ. 2009 Jun;18(6):681-96
18770875
Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2004;3(4):183-94
15901193
Health Econ Policy Law. 2009 Oct;4(Pt 4):527-46
19715635
Patient. 2009 Dec 1;2(4):243-55
22273245
Soc Sci Med. 2006 Apr;62(8):1891-901
16168542
Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1999 Spring;15(2):340-51
10507193
Birth. 2001 Dec;28(4):254-63
11903214
Pharmacoeconomics. 2004;22(18):1195-208
15606226
Health Econ. 2009 Aug;18(8):903-20
18973148
Med Decis Making. 2008 Jul-Aug;28(4):554-66
18364455
BMC Health Serv Res. 2010 Jul 07;10:197
20609244
Patient Educ Couns. 2010 Feb;78(2):198-205
19674862
Health Econ. 2012 Jun;21(6):730-41
21557381