A discrete choice experiment on preferences of patients with low back pain about non-surgical treatments: identification, refinement and selection of attributes and levels

References

• Facey KM, Hansen HP. Patient-focused HTAs. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2011;27:273–274. doi:10.1017/S026646231100057222004766
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Poder TG. Editorial: better understanding health preferences. Int J Heal Prefer Res. 2016;1:1.
   Google Scholar
• Mott DJ. Incorporating quantitative patient preference data into healthcare decision making processes: is HTA falling behind? Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Res. 2018;11:249–252. doi:10.1007/s40271-018-0305-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brooker A-S, Carcone S, Witteman W, Krahn M. Quantitative patient preference evidence for health technology assessment: a case study. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2013;29:290–300. doi:10.1017/S026646231300032923863189
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kievit W, Tummers M, van Hoorn R, et al. Taking patient heterogeneity and preferences into account in health technology assessments. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2017;33:562–569. doi:10.1017/S026646231700088529065947
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Poder TG, Bellemare CA, Bédard SK, Lemieux R. Social acceptance and population confidence in telehealth in Quebec. BMC Health Serv Res. 2015;15:72. doi:10.1186/s12913-015-0718-225889230
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aboagye E. Valuing individuals’ preferences and health choices of physical exercise. Pain Ther. 2017;6:85–91. doi:10.1007/s40122-017-0067-428260158
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gardner T, Refshauge K, McAuley J, Goodall S, Hübscher M, Smith L. Patient led goal setting in chronic low back pain – what goals are important to the patient and are they aligned to what we measure? Patient Educ Couns. 2015;98:1035–1038. doi:10.1016/j.pec.2015.04.01225959985
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ng-Mak DS, Poon JL, Rajagopalan K, et al. Qualitative study of patients’ preferences for bipolar depression treatment. Value Heal. 2015;18:A123. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2015.03.718
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Craig BM, Lancsar E, Mühlbacher AC, Brown DS, Ostermann J. Health preference research: an overview. Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Res. 2017;10:507–510. doi:10.1007/s40271-017-0253-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marsh K, Caro JJ, Zaiser E, Heywood J, Hamed A. Patient-centered decision-making: lessons from multi-criteria decision analysis for quantifying patient preferences. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2018;34:105–110. doi:10.1017/S026646231700111829277175
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson FR, Zhou M. Patient preferences in regulatory benefit-risk assessments: a US perspective. Value Heal. 2016;19:741–745. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2016.04.008
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Egbrink MO, IJzerman M. The value of quantitative patient preferences in regulatory benefit-risk assessment. J Mark Access Heal Policy. 2014;2:22761 Availble from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4865769/pdf/JMAHP-2-22761.pdf. Accessed May 23 2019.
   Google Scholar
• Vass C, Rigby D, Payne K. The role of qualitative research methods in discrete choice experiments. Med Decis Making. 2017;37:298–313. doi:10.1177/0272989X1668393428061040
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mathijssen E, van Heuckelum M, van Dijk L, et al. A discrete choice experiment on preferences of patients with rheumatoid arthritis regarding disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: the identification, refinement and selection of attributes and levels. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2018;12:1537–1555. doi:10.2147/PPA.S17606730197505
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mühlbacher A, Johnson FR. Choice experiments to quantify preferences for health and healthcare: state of the practice. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2016;14:253–266. doi:10.1007/s40258-016-0232-726992386
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McFadden D. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior In: Zarembka P, editor. Front Economy. New Ork: Academic Press; 1974:105–142.
   Google Scholar
• Haldeman S, Dagenais S. A supermarket approach to the evidence-informed management of chronic low back pain. Spine J. 2008;8:1–7. doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2007.10.00918164448
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roy M, Ganache I, Dagenais P. Advocating for a better engagement of patients, users, caregivers, and citizens in healthcare and social services technology assessment (HSTA). Int J Hosp-Based Health Technol Assess. 2018;1:15–18.
   Google Scholar
• Louvière JJ, Lancsar E. Choice experiments in health: the good, the bad, the ugly and toward a brighter future. Heal Econ Policy Law. 2009;4:527. doi:10.1017/S1744133109990193
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coast J, Al-Janabi H, Sutton EJ, et al. Using qualitative methods for attribute development for discrete choice experiments: issues and recommendations. Health Econ. 2012;21:730–741. doi:10.1002/hec.173921557381
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bridges JFP, 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 Heal. 2011;14:403–413. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2010.11.013
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Poder TG, Beffarat M. Factors underlying the choice of Low Back Pain (LBP) patients in non-surgical treatments: a systematic review. J Patient Experience. In press 2019.
   Google Scholar
• Pluye P, Robert E, Cargo M, Bartlett G. Proposal: A Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool for Systematic Mixed Studies Reviews. Montréal McGill Univ; 2011:1–8.
   Google Scholar
• National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. NICE guidelines for low-back pain. J Natl Med Assoc. 2009;101:974.
   Google Scholar
• Leventhal HA, Brissette I, Leventhal EA. The common-sense model of self-regulation of health and illness In: Cameron LD, Leventhal HA, editors. The Self-Regulation of Health and Illness Behaviour. London: Routledge; 2003:42–65.
   Google Scholar
• Poder TG, Bellemare CA. Importance of contextual data in producing health technology assessment recommendations: a case study. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2018;34:63–67. doi:10.1017/S026646231700446929482668
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Poder TG, Carrier N, Bédard SK. Health technology assessment unit processes for the validation of an information tool to involve patients in the safety of their care. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2018;34:378–387. doi:10.1017/S026646231800037529986770
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Poder TG. Using the health technology assessment toolbox to facilitate procurement: the case of smart pumps in a Canadian hospital. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2017;33:54–62. doi:10.1017/S026646231700012528578750
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar