收集医生对医疗器械的偏好:我们做得对吗?意大利骨科医生使用两种不同的陈述偏好方法提供的证据。

IF 3.1 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Medical Decision Making Pub Date : 2023-10-01 Epub Date: 2023-10-14 DOI:10.1177/0272989X231201805
Patrizio Armeni, Michela Meregaglia, Ludovica Borsoi, Giuditta Callea, Aleksandra Torbica, Francesco Benazzo, Rosanna Tarricone
{"title":"收集医生对医疗器械的偏好:我们做得对吗?意大利骨科医生使用两种不同的陈述偏好方法提供的证据。","authors":"Patrizio Armeni, Michela Meregaglia, Ludovica Borsoi, Giuditta Callea, Aleksandra Torbica, Francesco Benazzo, Rosanna Tarricone","doi":"10.1177/0272989X231201805","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Physician preference items (PPIs) are high-cost medical devices for which clinicians express firm preferences with respect to a particular manufacturer or product. This study aims to identify the most important factors in the choice of new PPIs (hip or knee prosthesis) and infer about the existence of possible response biases in using 2 alternative stated preference techniques.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Six key attributes with 3 levels each were identified based on a literature review and clinical experts' opinions. An online survey was administered to Italian hospital orthopedists using type 1 best-worst scaling (BWS) and binary discrete choice experiment (DCE). BWS data were analyzed through descriptive statistics and conditional logit model. A mixed logit regression model was applied to DCE data, and willingness-to-pay (WTP) was estimated. All analyses were conducted using Stata 16.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A sample of 108 orthopedists were enrolled. In BWS, the most important attribute was \"clinical evidence,\" followed by \"quality of products,\" while the least relevant items were \"relationship with the sales representative\" and \"cost.\" DCE results suggested instead that orthopedists prefer high-quality products with robust clinical evidence, positive health technology assessment recommendation and affordable cost, and for which they have a consolidated experience of use and a good relationship with the sales representative.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The elicitation of preferences for PPIs using alternative methods can lead to different results. The BWS of type 1, which is similar to a ranking exercise, seems to be more affected by acquiescent responding and social desirability than the DCE, which introduces tradeoffs in the choice task and is likely to reveal more about true preferences.</p><p><strong>Highlights: </strong>Physician preference items (PPIs) are medical devices particularly exposed to physicians' choice with regard to type of product and supplier.Some established techniques of collecting preferences can be affected by response biases such as acquiescent responding and social desirability.Discrete choice experiments, introducing more complex tradeoffs in the choice task, are likely to mitigate such biases and reveal true physicians' preferences for PPIs.</p>","PeriodicalId":49839,"journal":{"name":"Medical Decision Making","volume":" ","pages":"886-900"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10848602/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Collecting Physicians' Preferences on Medical Devices: Are We Doing It Right? Evidence from Italian Orthopedists Using 2 Different Stated Preference Methods.\",\"authors\":\"Patrizio Armeni, Michela Meregaglia, Ludovica Borsoi, Giuditta Callea, Aleksandra Torbica, Francesco Benazzo, Rosanna Tarricone\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/0272989X231201805\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Physician preference items (PPIs) are high-cost medical devices for which clinicians express firm preferences with respect to a particular manufacturer or product. This study aims to identify the most important factors in the choice of new PPIs (hip or knee prosthesis) and infer about the existence of possible response biases in using 2 alternative stated preference techniques.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Six key attributes with 3 levels each were identified based on a literature review and clinical experts' opinions. An online survey was administered to Italian hospital orthopedists using type 1 best-worst scaling (BWS) and binary discrete choice experiment (DCE). BWS data were analyzed through descriptive statistics and conditional logit model. A mixed logit regression model was applied to DCE data, and willingness-to-pay (WTP) was estimated. All analyses were conducted using Stata 16.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A sample of 108 orthopedists were enrolled. In BWS, the most important attribute was \\\"clinical evidence,\\\" followed by \\\"quality of products,\\\" while the least relevant items were \\\"relationship with the sales representative\\\" and \\\"cost.\\\" DCE results suggested instead that orthopedists prefer high-quality products with robust clinical evidence, positive health technology assessment recommendation and affordable cost, and for which they have a consolidated experience of use and a good relationship with the sales representative.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The elicitation of preferences for PPIs using alternative methods can lead to different results. The BWS of type 1, which is similar to a ranking exercise, seems to be more affected by acquiescent responding and social desirability than the DCE, which introduces tradeoffs in the choice task and is likely to reveal more about true preferences.</p><p><strong>Highlights: </strong>Physician preference items (PPIs) are medical devices particularly exposed to physicians' choice with regard to type of product and supplier.Some established techniques of collecting preferences can be affected by response biases such as acquiescent responding and social desirability.Discrete choice experiments, introducing more complex tradeoffs in the choice task, are likely to mitigate such biases and reveal true physicians' preferences for PPIs.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49839,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Medical Decision Making\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"886-900\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10848602/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Medical Decision Making\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X231201805\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/10/14 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical Decision Making","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X231201805","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/10/14 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:医师偏好项目(PPI)是指临床医生对特定制造商或产品表示坚定偏好的高成本医疗设备。本研究旨在确定选择新PPI(髋关节或膝关节假体)的最重要因素,并推断在使用2种替代的既定偏好技术时可能存在的反应偏差。方法:根据文献综述和临床专家的意见,确定6个关键属性,每个属性有3个级别。使用1型最佳-最差量表(BWS)和二元离散选择实验(DCE)对意大利医院骨科医生进行了在线调查。采用描述性统计和条件logit模型对BWS数据进行分析。将混合logit回归模型应用于DCE数据,并估计支付意愿(WTP)。所有分析均使用Stata 16进行。结果:入选108名骨科医生。在BWS中,最重要的属性是“临床证据”,其次是“产品质量”,而最不相关的项目是“与销售代表的关系”和“成本”。DCE的结果表明,骨科医生更喜欢具有强有力的临床证据、积极的健康技术评估建议和可负担的成本的高质量产品,他们有着丰富的使用经验,并与销售代表保持着良好的关系。结论:使用替代方法激发PPI的偏好可能会导致不同的结果。类型1的BWS类似于排名练习,似乎比DCE更受默许反应和社会愿望的影响,DCE在选择任务中引入了权衡,并可能揭示更多关于真实偏好的信息。亮点:医生偏好项目(PPI)是指在产品类型和供应商方面特别容易受到医生选择的医疗器械。一些收集偏好的既定技术可能会受到反应偏见的影响,如默许反应和社会期望。离散选择实验,在选择任务中引入更复杂的权衡,可能会减轻这种偏见,并揭示医生对PPI的真实偏好。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Collecting Physicians' Preferences on Medical Devices: Are We Doing It Right? Evidence from Italian Orthopedists Using 2 Different Stated Preference Methods.

Objectives: Physician preference items (PPIs) are high-cost medical devices for which clinicians express firm preferences with respect to a particular manufacturer or product. This study aims to identify the most important factors in the choice of new PPIs (hip or knee prosthesis) and infer about the existence of possible response biases in using 2 alternative stated preference techniques.

Methods: Six key attributes with 3 levels each were identified based on a literature review and clinical experts' opinions. An online survey was administered to Italian hospital orthopedists using type 1 best-worst scaling (BWS) and binary discrete choice experiment (DCE). BWS data were analyzed through descriptive statistics and conditional logit model. A mixed logit regression model was applied to DCE data, and willingness-to-pay (WTP) was estimated. All analyses were conducted using Stata 16.

Results: A sample of 108 orthopedists were enrolled. In BWS, the most important attribute was "clinical evidence," followed by "quality of products," while the least relevant items were "relationship with the sales representative" and "cost." DCE results suggested instead that orthopedists prefer high-quality products with robust clinical evidence, positive health technology assessment recommendation and affordable cost, and for which they have a consolidated experience of use and a good relationship with the sales representative.

Conclusions: The elicitation of preferences for PPIs using alternative methods can lead to different results. The BWS of type 1, which is similar to a ranking exercise, seems to be more affected by acquiescent responding and social desirability than the DCE, which introduces tradeoffs in the choice task and is likely to reveal more about true preferences.

Highlights: Physician preference items (PPIs) are medical devices particularly exposed to physicians' choice with regard to type of product and supplier.Some established techniques of collecting preferences can be affected by response biases such as acquiescent responding and social desirability.Discrete choice experiments, introducing more complex tradeoffs in the choice task, are likely to mitigate such biases and reveal true physicians' preferences for PPIs.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Medical Decision Making
Medical Decision Making 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
5.60%
发文量
146
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Medical Decision Making offers rigorous and systematic approaches to decision making that are designed to improve the health and clinical care of individuals and to assist with health care policy development. Using the fundamentals of decision analysis and theory, economic evaluation, and evidence based quality assessment, Medical Decision Making presents both theoretical and practical statistical and modeling techniques and methods from a variety of disciplines.
期刊最新文献
Unclear Trajectory and Uncertain Benefit: Creating a Lexicon for Clinical Uncertainty in Patients with Critical or Advanced Illness Using a Delphi Consensus Process. Multi-indication Evidence Synthesis in Oncology Health Technology Assessment: Meta-analysis Methods and Their Application to a Case Study of Bevacizumab. Use of Adaptive Conjoint Analysis-Based Values Clarification in a Patient Decision Aid Is Not Associated with Better Perceived Values Clarity or Reduced Decisional Conflict but Enhances Values Congruence. A Sequential Calibration Approach to Address Challenges of Repeated Calibration of a COVID-19 Model. A Longitudinal Study of the Association of Awareness of Disease Incurability with Patient-Reported Outcomes in Heart Failure.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1