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!
container_end_page e0283926
container_issue 7
container_start_page e0283926
container_title PloS one
container_volume 18
creator Whichello, Chiara
Smith, Ian
Veldwijk, Jorien
de Wit, G Ardine
Rutten-van Molken, Maureen P M H
de Bekker-Grob, Esther W
description 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.
doi_str_mv 10.1371/journal.pone.0283926
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>gale_plos_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_plos_journals_2843384024</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A758741382</galeid><sourcerecordid>A758741382</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c627t-33b2fa73c5fabb1609d781eef9bba849ee7bd7ec1d89e655cf19a04506c7e8353</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkl9r1TAYxosobk6_gWhAEL3oMWnaJvVGDvPfYDDw321I07c9GW1Sk_Rs-wz70qauG-fILqSEhOT3Pm_y9EmS5wSvCGXk3bmdnJH9arQGVjjjtMrKB8khqWiWlhmmD3fWB8kT788xLigvy8fJAWUFLjHjh8n1R-2VgwBIbaxWgOByBKcHMAFtwfnJI3-hTZdegO42Ia7eozXagGzSYNN5RsoOo3TaW4NsixotawhaoVEGPauMDlpwYBR41FqHun5S1kM6WKODdVERNbCNrf3T5FErew_Plvko-fn504_jr-np2ZeT4_VpqsqMhZTSOmslo6poZV2TElcN4wSgrepa8rwCYHXDQJGGV1AWhWpJJXEeX6wYcFrQo-Tlje7YWy8WH73IeE4pz3GWR-LDQkz1AI2K73CyF2M0RrorYaUW-ydGb0Rnt4JgyuPAUeHNouDs7wl8EEM0GvpeGrDT32Y5rsqc0Ii--ge9_0oL1ckehDatjY3VLCrWrOAsKvEsUqt7qPg1MGgVk9LquL9X8HavIDIBLkMnJ-_Fyfdv_8-e_dpnX--wMSd92HjbT0Fb4_fB_AZUznofs3LnMsFiDvqtG2IOuliCHste7P6hu6LbZNM_h0_8HA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2843384024</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Discrete choice experiment versus swing-weighting: A head-to-head comparison of diabetic patient preferences for glucose-monitoring devices</title><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>Public Library of Science (PLoS) Journals Open Access</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><source>Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry</source><creator>Whichello, Chiara ; Smith, Ian ; Veldwijk, Jorien ; de Wit, G Ardine ; Rutten-van Molken, Maureen P M H ; de Bekker-Grob, Esther W</creator><contributor>XU, Richard Huan</contributor><creatorcontrib>Whichello, Chiara ; Smith, Ian ; Veldwijk, Jorien ; de Wit, G Ardine ; Rutten-van Molken, Maureen P M H ; de Bekker-Grob, Esther W ; XU, Richard Huan</creatorcontrib><description>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.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0283926</identifier><identifier>PMID: 37506078</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Public Library of Science</publisher><subject>Biology and Life Sciences ; Care and treatment ; Case studies ; Comparative analysis ; Complications and side effects ; Decision making ; Devices ; Dextrose ; Diabetes ; Diabetes mellitus ; Diabetes mellitus (insulin dependent) ; Diabetes therapy ; Diabetics ; Engineering and Technology ; Evaluation ; Glucose ; Glucose monitoring ; Glucose monitors ; Health aspects ; Health education ; Health literacy ; Logit models ; Measurement techniques ; Medical equipment ; Medical research ; Medicine and Health Sciences ; Monitoring ; Patient compliance ; Patient monitoring equipment ; Patient outcomes ; Patients ; Physical Sciences ; Preferences ; Questionnaires ; Rankings ; Research and Analysis Methods ; Risk assessment ; Social Sciences ; Surveys ; Weighting</subject><ispartof>PloS one, 2023-07, Vol.18 (7), p.e0283926-e0283926</ispartof><rights>Copyright: © 2023 Whichello et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.</rights><rights>COPYRIGHT 2023 Public Library of Science</rights><rights>2023 Whichello et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><rights>2023 Whichello et al 2023 Whichello et al</rights><rights>2023 Whichello et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c627t-33b2fa73c5fabb1609d781eef9bba849ee7bd7ec1d89e655cf19a04506c7e8353</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c627t-33b2fa73c5fabb1609d781eef9bba849ee7bd7ec1d89e655cf19a04506c7e8353</cites><orcidid>0000-0003-1905-8985 ; 0000-0001-7645-6168</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10381030/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10381030/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,727,780,784,864,885,2928,23866,27924,27925,53791,53793,79600,79601</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37506078$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><contributor>XU, Richard Huan</contributor><creatorcontrib>Whichello, Chiara</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Smith, Ian</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Veldwijk, Jorien</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>de Wit, G Ardine</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rutten-van Molken, Maureen P M H</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>de Bekker-Grob, Esther W</creatorcontrib><title>Discrete choice experiment versus swing-weighting: A head-to-head comparison of diabetic patient preferences for glucose-monitoring devices</title><title>PloS one</title><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><description>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.</description><subject>Biology and Life Sciences</subject><subject>Care and treatment</subject><subject>Case studies</subject><subject>Comparative analysis</subject><subject>Complications and side effects</subject><subject>Decision making</subject><subject>Devices</subject><subject>Dextrose</subject><subject>Diabetes</subject><subject>Diabetes mellitus</subject><subject>Diabetes mellitus (insulin dependent)</subject><subject>Diabetes therapy</subject><subject>Diabetics</subject><subject>Engineering and Technology</subject><subject>Evaluation</subject><subject>Glucose</subject><subject>Glucose monitoring</subject><subject>Glucose monitors</subject><subject>Health aspects</subject><subject>Health education</subject><subject>Health literacy</subject><subject>Logit models</subject><subject>Measurement techniques</subject><subject>Medical equipment</subject><subject>Medical research</subject><subject>Medicine and Health Sciences</subject><subject>Monitoring</subject><subject>Patient compliance</subject><subject>Patient monitoring equipment</subject><subject>Patient outcomes</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>Physical Sciences</subject><subject>Preferences</subject><subject>Questionnaires</subject><subject>Rankings</subject><subject>Research and Analysis Methods</subject><subject>Risk assessment</subject><subject>Social Sciences</subject><subject>Surveys</subject><subject>Weighting</subject><issn>1932-6203</issn><issn>1932-6203</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2023</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkl9r1TAYxosobk6_gWhAEL3oMWnaJvVGDvPfYDDw321I07c9GW1Sk_Rs-wz70qauG-fILqSEhOT3Pm_y9EmS5wSvCGXk3bmdnJH9arQGVjjjtMrKB8khqWiWlhmmD3fWB8kT788xLigvy8fJAWUFLjHjh8n1R-2VgwBIbaxWgOByBKcHMAFtwfnJI3-hTZdegO42Ia7eozXagGzSYNN5RsoOo3TaW4NsixotawhaoVEGPauMDlpwYBR41FqHun5S1kM6WKODdVERNbCNrf3T5FErew_Plvko-fn504_jr-np2ZeT4_VpqsqMhZTSOmslo6poZV2TElcN4wSgrepa8rwCYHXDQJGGV1AWhWpJJXEeX6wYcFrQo-Tlje7YWy8WH73IeE4pz3GWR-LDQkz1AI2K73CyF2M0RrorYaUW-ydGb0Rnt4JgyuPAUeHNouDs7wl8EEM0GvpeGrDT32Y5rsqc0Ii--ge9_0oL1ckehDatjY3VLCrWrOAsKvEsUqt7qPg1MGgVk9LquL9X8HavIDIBLkMnJ-_Fyfdv_8-e_dpnX--wMSd92HjbT0Fb4_fB_AZUznofs3LnMsFiDvqtG2IOuliCHste7P6hu6LbZNM_h0_8HA</recordid><startdate>20230728</startdate><enddate>20230728</enddate><creator>Whichello, Chiara</creator><creator>Smith, Ian</creator><creator>Veldwijk, Jorien</creator><creator>de Wit, G Ardine</creator><creator>Rutten-van Molken, Maureen P M H</creator><creator>de Bekker-Grob, Esther W</creator><general>Public Library of Science</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>IOV</scope><scope>ISR</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>7T5</scope><scope>7TG</scope><scope>7TM</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>D1I</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>KL.</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PDBOC</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1905-8985</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7645-6168</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20230728</creationdate><title>Discrete choice experiment versus swing-weighting: A head-to-head comparison of diabetic patient preferences for glucose-monitoring devices</title><author>Whichello, Chiara ; Smith, Ian ; Veldwijk, Jorien ; de Wit, G Ardine ; Rutten-van Molken, Maureen P M H ; de Bekker-Grob, Esther W</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c627t-33b2fa73c5fabb1609d781eef9bba849ee7bd7ec1d89e655cf19a04506c7e8353</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2023</creationdate><topic>Biology and Life Sciences</topic><topic>Care and treatment</topic><topic>Case studies</topic><topic>Comparative analysis</topic><topic>Complications and side effects</topic><topic>Decision making</topic><topic>Devices</topic><topic>Dextrose</topic><topic>Diabetes</topic><topic>Diabetes mellitus</topic><topic>Diabetes mellitus (insulin dependent)</topic><topic>Diabetes therapy</topic><topic>Diabetics</topic><topic>Engineering and Technology</topic><topic>Evaluation</topic><topic>Glucose</topic><topic>Glucose monitoring</topic><topic>Glucose monitors</topic><topic>Health aspects</topic><topic>Health education</topic><topic>Health literacy</topic><topic>Logit models</topic><topic>Measurement techniques</topic><topic>Medical equipment</topic><topic>Medical research</topic><topic>Medicine and Health Sciences</topic><topic>Monitoring</topic><topic>Patient compliance</topic><topic>Patient monitoring equipment</topic><topic>Patient outcomes</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>Physical Sciences</topic><topic>Preferences</topic><topic>Questionnaires</topic><topic>Rankings</topic><topic>Research and Analysis Methods</topic><topic>Risk assessment</topic><topic>Social Sciences</topic><topic>Surveys</topic><topic>Weighting</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Whichello, Chiara</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Smith, Ian</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Veldwijk, Jorien</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>de Wit, G Ardine</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rutten-van Molken, Maureen P M H</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>de Bekker-Grob, Esther W</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Science</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>Meteorological &amp; Geoastrophysical Abstracts</collection><collection>Nucleic Acids Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Materials Science &amp; Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies &amp; Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural &amp; Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Materials Science Database</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Meteorological &amp; Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Database</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies &amp; Aerospace Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies &amp; Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Whichello, Chiara</au><au>Smith, Ian</au><au>Veldwijk, Jorien</au><au>de Wit, G Ardine</au><au>Rutten-van Molken, Maureen P M H</au><au>de Bekker-Grob, Esther W</au><au>XU, Richard Huan</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Discrete choice experiment versus swing-weighting: A head-to-head comparison of diabetic patient preferences for glucose-monitoring devices</atitle><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><date>2023-07-28</date><risdate>2023</risdate><volume>18</volume><issue>7</issue><spage>e0283926</spage><epage>e0283926</epage><pages>e0283926-e0283926</pages><issn>1932-6203</issn><eissn>1932-6203</eissn><abstract>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.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Public Library of Science</pub><pmid>37506078</pmid><doi>10.1371/journal.pone.0283926</doi><tpages>e0283926</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1905-8985</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7645-6168</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1932-6203
ispartof PloS one, 2023-07, Vol.18 (7), p.e0283926-e0283926
issn 1932-6203
1932-6203
language eng
recordid cdi_plos_journals_2843384024
source DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; Public Library of Science (PLoS) Journals Open Access; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; PubMed Central; Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry
subjects Biology and Life Sciences
Care and treatment
Case studies
Comparative analysis
Complications and side effects
Decision making
Devices
Dextrose
Diabetes
Diabetes mellitus
Diabetes mellitus (insulin dependent)
Diabetes therapy
Diabetics
Engineering and Technology
Evaluation
Glucose
Glucose monitoring
Glucose monitors
Health aspects
Health education
Health literacy
Logit models
Measurement techniques
Medical equipment
Medical research
Medicine and Health Sciences
Monitoring
Patient compliance
Patient monitoring equipment
Patient outcomes
Patients
Physical Sciences
Preferences
Questionnaires
Rankings
Research and Analysis Methods
Risk assessment
Social Sciences
Surveys
Weighting
title Discrete choice experiment versus swing-weighting: A head-to-head comparison of diabetic patient preferences for glucose-monitoring devices
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-25T18%3A38%3A13IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_plos_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Discrete%20choice%20experiment%20versus%20swing-weighting:%20A%20head-to-head%20comparison%20of%20diabetic%20patient%20preferences%20for%20glucose-monitoring%20devices&rft.jtitle=PloS%20one&rft.au=Whichello,%20Chiara&rft.date=2023-07-28&rft.volume=18&rft.issue=7&rft.spage=e0283926&rft.epage=e0283926&rft.pages=e0283926-e0283926&rft.issn=1932-6203&rft.eissn=1932-6203&rft_id=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0283926&rft_dat=%3Cgale_plos_%3EA758741382%3C/gale_plos_%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2843384024&rft_id=info:pmid/37506078&rft_galeid=A758741382&rfr_iscdi=true