Using Latent Class Analysis to Model Preference Heterogeneity in Health: A Systematic Review
- 356 Downloads
Latent class analysis (LCA) has been increasingly used to explore preference heterogeneity, but the literature has not been systematically explored and hence best practices are not understood.
We sought to document all applications of LCA in the stated-preference literature in health and to inform future studies by identifying current norms in published applications.
We conducted a systematic review of the MEDLINE, EMBASE, EconLit, Web of Science, and PsycINFO databases. We included stated-preference studies that used LCA to explore preference heterogeneity in healthcare or public health. Two co-authors independently evaluated titles, abstracts, and full-text articles. Abstracted key outcomes included segmentation methods, preference elicitation methods, number of attributes and levels, sample size, model selection criteria, number of classes reported, and hypotheses tests. Study data quality and validity were assessed with the Purpose, Respondents, Explanation, Findings, and Significance (PREFS) quality checklist.
We identified 2560 titles, 99 of which met the inclusion criteria for the review. Two-thirds of the studies focused on the preferences of patients and the general population. In total, 80% of the studies used discrete choice experiments. Studies used between three and 20 attributes, most commonly four to six. Sample size in LCAs ranged from 47 to 2068, with one-third between 100 and 300. Over 90% of the studies used latent class logit models for segmentation. Bayesian information criterion (BIC), Akaike information criterion (AIC), and log-likelihood (LL) were commonly used for model selection, and class size and interpretability were also considered in some studies. About 80% of studies reported two to three classes. The number of classes reported was not correlated with any study characteristics or study population characteristics (p > 0.05). Only 30% of the studies reported using statistical tests to detect significant variations in preferences between classes. Less than half of the studies reported that individual characteristics were included in the segmentation models, and 30% reported that post-estimation analyses were conducted to examine class characteristics. While a higher percentage of studies discussed clinical implications of the segmentation results, an increasing number of studies proposed policy recommendations based on segmentation results since 2010.
LCA is increasingly used to study preference heterogeneity in health and support decision-making. However, there is little consensus on best practices as its application in health is relatively new. With an increasing demand to study preference heterogeneity, guidance is needed to improve the quality of applications of segmentation methods in health to support policy development and clinical practice.
Mo Zhou (MZ) and John Bridges (JB) conceptualized this paper; MZ, JB, and Winter Thayer (WT) developed the search terms and inclusion/exclusion criteria for identifying relevant studies; MZ and WT conducted the title, abstract, and full-text review; JB served as the third reviewer in case of disagreement between MZ and WT; MZ led the writing of the manuscript; MZ, WT, and JB all contributed to the writing of the manuscript and approved the final version.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Funding relating to this systematic review was received from a Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) Methods Program Award (ME-1303-5946).
Conflict of interest
Mo Zhou, Winter Thayer, and John Bridges report no conflicts of interest.
Data availability statement
All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article and its supplementary information files.
- 3.Vass C, Gray E, Payne K. Discrete choice experiments of pharmacy services: a systematic review. Int J Clin Pharmacy. 2016;38(3):620–30.Google Scholar
- 10.Hilger J, Hanemann M. Heterogeneous preferences for water quality: a finite mixture model of beach recreation in Southern California. UC Sandiego, California Sea Grant College Program; 2006. http://escholarship.org/uc/item/0565c0b2. Accessed 23 Sept 2017.
- 13.Singh J, Cuttler L, Shin M, Silvers J, Neuhauser D. Medical decision-making and the patient: understanding preference patterns for growth hormone therapy using conjoint analysis. Med Care. 1998;36(8):AS31-AS45.Google Scholar
- 30.Waschbusch DA, Cunningham CE, Pelham WE Jr, Rimas HL, Greiner AR, Gnagy EM, et al. A discrete choice conjoint experiment to evaluate parent preferences for treatment of young, medication naive children with ADHD. J Clin Child Adolesc Psychol. 2011;40(4):546–61.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 34.Kuzmanovic M, Vujosevic M, Martic M. Using conjoint analysis to elicit patients’ preferences for public primary care service in Serbia. HealthMED. 2012;6(2):496–504.Google Scholar
- 59.Hofman R, de Bekker-Grob EW, Richardus JH, de Koning HJ, van Ballegooijen M, Korfage IJ. Have preferences of girls changed almost 3 years after the much debated start of the HPV vaccination program in the Netherlands? A discrete choice experiment. PLoS One. 2014;9(8):e104772.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 84.de-Magistris T, Lopéz-Galán B. Consumers’ willingness to pay for nutritional claims fighting the obesity epidemic: the case of reduced-fat and low salt cheese in Spain. Public Health. 2016;135:83–90.Google Scholar
- 85.Determann D, Korfage IJ, Fagerlin A, Steyerberg EW, Bliemer MC, Voeten HA, et al. Public preferences for vaccination programmes during pandemics caused by pathogens transmitted through respiratory droplets–a discrete choice experiment in four European countries, 2013. Euro Surveill. 2016;21(22):30247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 94.Hifinger M, Hiligsmann M, Ramiro S, Watson V, Severens J, Fautrel B, et al. Economic considerations and patients’ preferences affect treatment selection for patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a discrete choice experiment among European rheumatologists. Ann Rheum Dis. 2017;76(1):126–32.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 101.Ng X, Bridges JF, Ross MM, Frosch E, Reeves G, Cunningham CE. A Latent class analysis to identify variation in caregivers’ preferences for their child’s attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder treatment: do stated preferences match current treatment? Patient. 2017;10(2):251–62.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 112.Bien DR, Danner M, Vennedey V, Civello D, Evers SM, Hiligsmann M. Patients’ preferences for outcome, process and cost attributes in cancer treatment: a systematic review of discrete choice experiments. Patient. 2017. doi: 10.1007/s40271-017-0235-y (Epub 2017 Mar 31).PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 113.Magidson J, Vermunt JK, editors. Removing the scale factor confound in multinomial logit choice models to obtain better estimates of preference. In: Sawtooth software conference proceedings. 2007.Google Scholar