Discrete choice experiment versus swing-weighting: A head-to-head comparison of diabetic patient preferences for glucose-monitoring devices

Limited evidence exists for how patient preference elicitation methods compare directly. This study compares a discrete choice experiment (DCE) and swing-weighting (SW) by eliciting preferences for glucose-monitoring devices in a population of diabetes patients. A sample of Dutch adults with type 1...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:PloS one 2023-07, Vol.18 (7), p.e0283926-e0283926
Hauptverfasser: Whichello, Chiara, Smith, Ian, Veldwijk, Jorien, de Wit, G Ardine, Rutten-van Molken, Maureen P M H, de Bekker-Grob, Esther W
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Limited evidence exists for how patient preference elicitation methods compare directly. This study compares a discrete choice experiment (DCE) and swing-weighting (SW) by eliciting preferences for glucose-monitoring devices in a population of diabetes patients. A sample of Dutch adults with type 1 or 2 diabetes (n = 459) completed an online survey assessing their preferences for glucose-monitoring devices, consisting of both a DCE and a SW exercise. Half the sample completed the DCE first; the other half completed the SW first. For the DCE, the relative importance of the attributes of the devices was determined using a mixed-logit model. For the SW, the relative importance of the attributes was based on ranks and points allocated to the 'swing' from the worst to the best level of the attribute. The preference outcomes and self-reported response burden were directly compared between the two methods. Participants reported they perceived the DCE to be easier to understand and answer compared to the SW. Both methods revealed that cost and precision of the device were the most important attributes. However, the DCE had a 14.9-fold difference between the most and least important attribute, while the SW had a 1.4-fold difference. The weights derived from the SW were almost evenly distributed between all attributes. The DCE was better received by participants, and generated larger weight differences between each attribute level, making it the more informative method in our case study. This method comparison provides further evidence of the degree of method suitability and trustworthiness.
ISSN:1932-6203
1932-6203
DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0283926