Using Conjoint Analysis to Evaluate Health State Preferences
Quality of life dimensions are important considerations when patients evaluate pharmaceutical products with respect to personal benefits. Traditionally, standard gamble, time trade-off, and rating scale techniques are used to obtain preference (utility) estimates for various quality of life dimensions. This study examines three objectives to determine the feasibility of using conjoint analysis to elicit patient preferences for a particular health state. For the first objective, patients with multiple myeloma were asked to select quality of life conditions for 18 hypothetical patients with cancer and to indicate which conditions were the easiest and hardest to live with. Second, patients were asked to rate several cancer-related and general symptoms using visual analog scales. Third, comparisons were made between the two techniques to determine similarity and validity. Results revealed that conjoint analysis is useful for health-related quality of life research, and that conjoint analysis results compare favorably with values obtained from visual analog scales.
Key WordsHealth state preferences Conjoint analysis Visual analog scaling Quality of life multiple myeloma
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Nunnally JC. Psychometric Theory. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1978.Google Scholar
- 2.Von Neumann J, Mergenstem O. Theory of Games and Economic Behavior. 2nd ed. Princeton, NJ: University Press; 1947.Google Scholar
- 8.Coates A, Thomson D, McLeod GRM, Hersey P, Gill PG, Olver IN, Kefford R, Lowenthal RM, Beadle G, Walpole E. Prognostic value of quality of life scores in a trial of chemotherapy with or without interferon in patients with metastatic malignant melanoma. European J Cancer. 1993;29A(12):1731–1734.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 17.Drummond MF, Stoddart GL. Torrance GW. Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes. Oxford: Oxford Medical Publications, Oxford University Press; 1992.Google Scholar
- 20.Szeinbach SL, Barnes JH. Garner DD. Building brand equity in the pharmaceutical industry through value-added services: an application of maximum difference conjoint analysis using best-worst scaling. J Business Res. 1997;40:226–236.Google Scholar
- 23.Louviere JJ, Finn A, Timmermans H. Retailing research. In McGraw-Hill Handbook of Marketing Research. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company; 1992.Google Scholar
- 24.Louviere JJ, Swait J, Anderson D. Best-worst conjoint: theory, methods and comparisons with choicebased conjoint and reported marketplace choices. Working Paper. University of Florida, 1995.Google Scholar
- 28.Melzack R. The McGill pain questionniare; major properties and scoring methods. Pain. 1975; 1227–1299.Google Scholar