Program

In-person AND virtual! – We are pioneering a new conference format that will connect in-person and virtual audiences to create a unique experience. Matching the innovation that comes through our members’ work, ISPOR is pushing the boundaries of innovation to design an event that works in today’s quickly changing environment. 

In-person registration included the full virtual experience, and virtual-only attendees will be able to tune into live in-person sessions and/or watch captured in-person sessions on-demand in addition to having a variety of virtual-only sessions to attend.

Developing the Consolidated Health Outcomes/Interventions Choice-Modeling Evaluation Standards (CHOICES): A Content Analysis

Speaker(s)

Crossnohere N1, Janssen E2, Knight SJ3, Hauber B4, Bridges J5
1The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA, 2The Janssen Pharmaceutical Companies of J&J, Baltimore, MD, USA, 3University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA, 4Pfizer, New York, NY, USA, 5Ohio State University College of Medicine, Columbus, OH, USA

OBJECTIVES: Standards for conducting and reporting methods are vital to ensuring the validity of studies and literatures. Best-practices for the use of choice-modeling in the evaluation of health outcomes and health interventions are emerging, but consolidated standards do not yet exist. To develop the Consolidated Health Outcomes and Interventions Choice-modeling Evaluation Standards (CHOICES) we conducted a content analysis of relevant sources to identify key items for preference evaluation.

METHODS: We identified frameworks, checklists, and best-practice documents pertaining to the application of choice-modeling approaches in health. These included sources relevant to specific methods (e.g. conjoint analysis, discrete-choice experiments, best-worst scaling), preference measurement more generally, and for specific diseases or populations. Content analysis identified candidate items, a t-test explored differences in the number of items cross source type, and a nominal group approach was used for item reduction and thematic analysis.

RESULTS: We identified 15 relevant sources relating to the evaluation of preference-elicitation instruments (60% of sources), preference studies (67%), and preference literature (15%). We identified more than 50 items as candidates for inclusion in CHOICES. Sources related to preference studies identified twice as many items as other sources (P=0.04). Items were grouped into eight themes: internal validity (28% of items), external validity (20%), questionnaire development (18%), study conduct (8%), statistical testing (8%), robustness (6%), relevance (6%), and interpretation (6%).

CONCLUSIONS: This study presents the first steps in developing consolidated standards for using choice-modeling to measure preferences for health outcomes and interventions. By highlighting the key themes and critically comparing existing frameworks, we demonstrate the need for a consolidated approach and identify the likely theme and candidate items for incorporation. It remains unclear if separate standards are needed for the critical appraisal of preference-elicitation instruments, studies, and literatures. Further consensus is needed to advance standards for choice-modeling approaches in health.

Code

MSR36

Topic

Methodological & Statistical Research, Patient-Centered Research, Study Approaches

Topic Subcategory

Literature Review & Synthesis, Stated Preference & Patient Satisfaction, Survey Methods

Disease

No Additional Disease & Conditions/Specialized Treatment Areas