Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Key Issues and Potential Solutions for Understanding Healthcare Preference Heterogeneity Free from Patient-Level Scale Confounds

  • Commentary
  • Published:
The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

References

  1. Johnson FR, Beusterien K, Özdemir S, Wilson L. Giving patients a meaningful voice in United States Regulatory Decision Making: the role for health preference research. Patient Patient Cent Outcomes Res. 2017;10:523–6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-017-0250-z.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Whitty JA, Fraenkel L, Saigal CS, Groothuis-Oudshoorn CGM, Regier DA, Marshall DA. Assessment of Individual Patient Preferences to Inform Clinical Practice. Patient Patient Cent Outcomes Res. 2017;10:519–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-017-0254-8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Craig BM, Lancsar E, Mühlbacher AC, Brown DS, Ostermann J. Health preference research: an overview. Patient Patient Cent Outcomes Res. 2017;10:507–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-017-0253-9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Deal K. Segmenting patients and physicians using preferences from discrete choice experiments. Patient Patient Cent Outcomes Res. 2014;7:5–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-013-0037-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. McFadden D. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. In: Zarembka P, editor. Front Econom. New York: Academic Press; 1974. p. 105–42.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Kamakura WA, Russell G. A probabilistic choice model for market segmentation and elasticity structure. J Mark Res. 1989;26:379–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Revelt D, Train K. Mixed logit with repeated choices: households’ choices of appliance efficiency level. Rev Econ Stat. 1998;80:647–57. https://econpapers.repec.org/RePEc:tpr:restat:v:80:y:1998:i:4:p:647-657.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. McFadden D, Train K. Mixed MNL models of discrete response. J Appl Econ. 2000;15:447–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Fiebig D, Keane M, Louviere J, Wasim N. The generalized multinomial logit model: accounting for scale and coefficient heterogeneity. Mark Sci. 2010;29:393–421.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Yatchew A, Griliches Z. Specification error in probit models. Rev Econ Stat. 1985;67:134–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Hensher DA, Louviere J. Combining sources of preference data. J Econ. 1999;89:197–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Wright SJ, Vass CM, Sim G, et al. Accounting for scale heterogeneity in healthcare-related discrete choice experiments when comparing stated preferences: a systematic review. Patient. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-018-0304-x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Magidson J, Vermunt JK. Removing the scale factor confound in multinomial logit choice models to obtain better estimates of preference. In: Sawtooth Software Conference. Sequim, WA; 2007. pp. 139–54.

  14. Mardia KV, Kent JT, Bibby JM. Cluster analysis. Multivar Anal. London: Academic Press; 1979. p. 360–93.

  15. Van den Bergh M, van Kollenburg GH, Vermunt JK. Deciding on the starting number of classes of a latent class tree. Sociol Methodol. 2018 (in press).

  16. Hole AR, Yoo HI. The use of heuristic optimization algorithms to facilitate maximum simulated likelihood estimation of random parameter logit models. J R Stat Soc Ser C. 2017;66:997–1013.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Louviere J, Flynn TN, Marley AAJ. Best-worst scaling: theory, methods and applications. 1st ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2015.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  18. Swait J, Louviere J. The role of the scale parameter in the estimation and comparison of multinomial logit models. J Mark Res Am Mark Assoc; 1993;30:305–14. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3172883.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Vermunt JK, Magidson J. Technical Guide for Latent Gold 5.1: Basic, Advanced, and Syntax. Belmont: Statistical Innovations Inc.; 2016.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Health Technology and Services Research, Faculty BMS, University of Twente, PO Box 217, 7500 AE, Enschede, The Netherlands

    Catharina G. M. Groothuis-Oudshoorn

  2. TF Choices LTD, Nottingham, NG5 8JE, UK

    Terry N. Flynn

  3. Durham University Business School, Durham University, Durham, DH1 3LB, UK

    Hong Il Yoo

  4. Statistical Innovations Inc., 375 Concord Ave. (Suite 007), Belmont, MA, 02478, USA

    Jay Magidson

  5. EuroQol Research Foundation, Marten Meesweg 107, 3068 AV, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

    Mark Oppe

Authors
  1. Catharina G. M. Groothuis-Oudshoorn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Terry N. Flynn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Hong Il Yoo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jay Magidson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Mark Oppe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Catharina G. M. Groothuis-Oudshoorn.

Ethics declarations

Funding

No funding was obtained for the writing of this commentary.

Conflicts of interest

Groothuis-Oudshoorn, Yoo and Oppe have no potential conflicts of interest relevant to the present study. Magidson has a financial interest in the Latent Gold software (as owner of Statistical Innovations). Flynn is owner of TF Choices, which relies on the use of latent gold in commercial studies.

Additional information

This article is part of the topical collection on “From the International Academy of Health Preference Research”.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Groothuis-Oudshoorn, C.G.M., Flynn, T.N., Yoo, H.I. et al. Key Issues and Potential Solutions for Understanding Healthcare Preference Heterogeneity Free from Patient-Level Scale Confounds. Patient 11, 463–466 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-018-0309-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-018-0309-5

Search

Navigation