1,268
Views
0
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Original Research

A discrete-choice experiment study of physicians’ prioritization of attributes of medical treatments for endometriosis-associated pain

ORCID Icon, , ORCID Icon, ORCID Icon, , , & show all
Pages 111-121 | Received 31 Aug 2022, Accepted 22 Nov 2022, Published online: 10 Jan 2023

References

  • Fuldeore MJ, Soliman AM. Prevalence and symptomatic burden of diagnosed endometriosis in the United States: national estimates from a cross-sectional survey of 59,411 women. Gynecol Obstet Invest. 2017;82(5):453–461.
  • Goldstein DP, deCholnoky C, Emans SJ, et al. Laparoscopy in the diagnosis and management of pelvic pain in adolescents. J Reprod Med. 1980 Jun;24(6):251–256.
  • Eskenazi B, Warner ML. Epidemiology of endometriosis. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am. 1997 Jun;24(2):235–258.
  • Zondervan KT, Becker CM, Missmer SA. Endometriosis. N Engl J Med. 2020 Mar 26;382(13):1244–1256.
  • Taylor HS, Giudice LC, Lessey BA, et al. Treatment of endometriosis-associated pain with elagolix, an oral GnRH antagonist. N Engl J Med. 2017 Jul 6;377(1):28–40.
  • Poulos C, Soliman AM, Renz CL, et al. Patient preferences for endometriosis pain treatments in the United States. Value Health. 2019 Jun;22(6):728–738.
  • Poulos C, Soliman AM, Tekin S, et al. Patient preferences for elagolix and leuprolide for treating endometriosis-related pain in the United States. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2021 Oct;21(5):1091–1099.
  • Soekhai V, de Bekker-Grob EW, Ellis AR, et al. Discrete choice experiments in health economics: past, present and future. Pharmacoeconomics. 2019 Feb;37(2):201–226.
  • Hauber AB, Gonzalez JM, Groothuis-Oudshoorn CG, et al. Statistical methods for the analysis of discrete choice experiments: a report of the ISPOR conjoint analysis good research practices task force. Value Health. 2016 Jun;19(4):300–315.
  • Bridges JF, Hauber AB, Marshall D, et al. Conjoint analysis applications in health–a checklist: a report of the ISPOR good research practices for conjoint analysis task force. Value Health. 2011 Jun;14(4):403–413.
  • 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 Jan-Feb;16(1):3–13.
  • Kuhfeld W, Tobias F, Garratt M. Efficient experimental design with marketing research applications. J Market Res. 1994;31(4):545–557.
  • Kuhfeld W. Marketing research methods in SAS: experimental design, choice, conjoint, and graphical techniques. Cary NC: SAS Institute Inc; 2010.
  • Louviere JJ, Hensher DA, Swait JD. Stated choice methods: analysis and applications. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2000.
  • Johnson FR, Yang J-C, Mohamed AF. In defense of imperfect experimental designs; statistical efficiency and measurement error in choice-format discrete-choice experiment. Presented at the Proceedings of the Sawtooth Software Conference. March, 2012. p. 195–205.
  • de Bekker-Grob EW, Donkers B, Jonker MF, et al. Sample size requirements for discrete-choice experiments in healthcare: a practical guide. Patient. 2015 Oct;8(5):373–384.
  • Marshall D, Bridges JF, Hauber B, et al. Conjoint analysis applications in health – How are studies being designed and reported?: an update on current practice in the published literature between 2005 and 2008Reported? The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research. 2010 Dec 1;3(4):249–256.
  • Yang JC, Johnson FR, Kilambi V, et al. Sample size and utility difference precision in discrete-choice experiments: a meta-simulation approach. J Choice Model. 2015;16(C):50–57.
  • Green L, Myerson J. A discounting framework for choice with delayed and probabilistic rewards. Psychol Bull. 2004 Sep;130(5):769–792.
  • Harrison M, Milbers K, Hudson M, et al. Do patients and health care providers have discordant preferences about which aspects of treatments matter most? Evidence from a systematic review of discrete choice experiments. BMJ Open. 2017 May 17;7(5):e014719.
  • Ho MP, Gonzalez JM, Lerner HP, et al. Incorporating patient-preference evidence into regulatory decision making. Surg Endosc. 2015 Oct;29(10):2984–2993.
  • Marta-Pedroso C, Freitas H, Domingos T. Testing for the survey mode effect on contingent valuation data quality: a case study of web based versus in-person interviews.Ecol Econ. 2007 [2007 May 15];62(3):388–398.
  • Nielsen JS. Use of the Internet for willingness-to-pay surveys: a comparison of face-to-face and web-based interviews. Resour Energy Econ. 2011;33(1):119–129.