GRP logo
Conjoint Analysis Experimental Design Good Research Practices

Constructing Experimental Designs for Discrete-Choice Experiments: Report of the ISPOR Conjoint Analysis Experimental Design Task Force

The citation for this report is:
Johnson FR, Lancsar E, Marshall, D, et al. Constructing experimental designs for discrete-choice experiments: Report of the ISPOR conjoint analysis experimental design good research practices task force. Value Health 2013;16:3-13.

Editorial: Turning the Spotlight on Experimental Design in Discrete Choice Experiments – A Focus on Pragmatic Approaches in Health

Jennifer A. Whitty, PhD, Centre for Applied Health Economics, School of Medicine, Griffith Health Institute, Griffith University, Meadowbrook, Queensland, Australia and Teresa L. Kauf, PhD, Cubist Pharmaceuticals, Lexington, MA, USA

Translations: » Bulgarian

Task Force Chair:
F. Reed Johnson, PhD, Distinguished Fellow and Principal Economist, Health Preference Assessment Group, RTI Health Solutions,
RTI International, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA

Leadership Group:
John F. P. Bridges, PhD, Assistant Professor, Department of Health Policy & Management Johns Hopkins BloombergSchool of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA
Barbara Kanninen, PhD, Principal, BK Econometrics, LLC, Arlington, VA, USA & Senior advisor to Stratus Consulting, Boulder, Colorado, USA
Brian Bresnahan, PhD, Research Assistant Professor, Department of Radiology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA
Emily Lancsar, PhD, Associate Professor, Centre for Health Economics, Faculty of Business and Economics, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Deborah Marshall, PhD, MHSA, Canada Research Chair, Health Services and Systems Research; Associate Professor, Department of Community Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Calgary; Alberta Bone and Joint Health Institute, Calgary, AB, Canada
Axel Mühlbacher, PhD, Harkness Fellow in Health Care Policy & Practice, Duke Clinical Research Institute/ Fuqua School of Business, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA and Professor, HS Neubrandenburg, Neubrandenburg, Germany
Dean Regier PhD, Assistant Member, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center & Assistant Professor, Pharmaceutical Outcomes Research and Policy Program, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA
John Rose, PhD, Senior Lecturer, Institute of Transport & Logistic Studies, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
Vik Kilambi, BA, Research Associate, RTI Health Solutions, RTI International, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA

Background:
Conjoint analysis studies, also called discrete choice experiments or stated choice surveys, offer subjects a series of choices among two or more constructed treatment profiles. The pattern of choices reveals the implicit decision weights patients attach to therapeutic benefits, harms, processes, and costs that describe the treatment profiles. These weights are used to estimate the relative importance of various treatment outcomes, to calculate patients’ willingness to accept higher risks or costs in return for improved efficacy, to derive time equivalents of changes in health states (generalized QALYs), and to predict likely uptake for new health technologies. Continued…

References

Activities:

Designing Conjoint Experiments: A Guide to Alternative Strategies
June 2012 - ISPOR 17th Annual International Meeting, Forum Presentation, Washington, DC, USA

Conjoint Analysis – Theory & Methods
June 2012 - ISPOR 17th Annual International Meeting, Short Course Presentation, Washington, DC, USA

Designing Conjoint Experiments: A Guide to Alternative Strategies
May 2011 – ISPOR 16th Annual International Meeting, Forum Presentation, Baltimore, MD, USA

Conjoint Analysis – Theory & Methods
November 2011 – ISPOR 14th Annual European Congress, Short Course Presentation, Madrid, Spain

Designing Conjoint Experiments: A Guide to Alternative Strategies
May 2011 – ISPOR 16th Annual International Meeting, Forum Presentation, Baltimore, MD, USA


ISPOR Good Practices For Outcomes Research Index