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...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | PloS one 2023-07, Vol.18 (7), p.e0283926-e0283926 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , |
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 & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts</collection><collection>Nucleic Acids Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>Health & 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 & Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural & 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 & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Materials Science Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Database</collection><collection>Health & 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 & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies & 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 |