OBJECTIVES: 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.

METHODS: A sample of Dutch adults with type 1 and 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.

RESULTS: Participants reported they perceived the DCE to be easier to understand and answer compared to the SW. The order in which the methods were completed did not significantly affect preference outcomes. Both methods detected 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 for the SW this was 1.4 fold. The weights derived from the SW were almost evenly distributed between all the attributes.

CONCLUSIONS: The DCE was better received by participants, and obtained more detailed preferences for every attribute level, making it the preferred method over the SW in our case study. This method comparison provides further evidence of the degree of suitability and trustworthiness of these methods for measuring preferences for medical product lifecycle decisions. Further research should compare these methods in different disease areas and decision contexts.