Ho Thi Quynh Anh, Engel Lidia, Le Long Khanh-Dao, Melvin Glenn, Ride Jemimah, Le Ha N D, Mihalopoulos Cathrine
Deakin Health Economics, School of Health and Social Development, Institute of Health Transformation, Deakin University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
, 221 Burwood Highway, Burwood, VIC, 3125, Australia.
Patient. 2025 May 2. doi: 10.1007/s40271-025-00739-5.
Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) and best-worst scaling (BWS) profile cases (BWS case 2, or BWS-2) have been increasingly used in eliciting preferences towards health care interventions. However, it remains unclear which method is more suitable for preference elicitation, particularly in the mental health context. This study aims to compare: (1) the preference results elicited from a DCE and BWS-2; and (2) the acceptability of the two methods in the context of web-based mental health interventions (W-MHIs) for managing anxiety and depression in young people.
Participants were aged 18-25 years, lived in Australia, and self-reported experiencing anxiety and/or depression in the past 12 months. They also had either an intention to use W-MHIs or previous experience with W-MHIs for managing anxiety and/or depression. Recruitment was conducted online via social media and Deakin University notice boards. Eligible participants completed an online survey containing eight DCE and eight BWS-2 choice tasks. Both types of choice tasks comprised six attributes. A multinominal logit model was used to estimate the preference weights and relative importance of attributes. Acceptability was assessed on the basis of dropout rate, completion time, task difficulty, understanding, and participants' preferred type of choice task.
A total of 198 participants (mean age: 21.42 ± 2.3 years, 64.65% female) completed the survey. Both DCE and BWS-2 predicted that cost was the most important attribute in young people's decision to engage with W-MHIs. However, the two methods differed in the relative importance of attributes and the preference ranking of levels within attributes. The DCE was perceived as easier to understand and answer, with nearly 64% of the participants preferring it over the BWS-2.
While both methods found cost was the most important attribute associated with engagement with W-MHIs, differences in the ranking of other attributes suggest that DCE and BWS-2 are not necessarily interchangeable. Increased acceptability by study participants of the DCE format suggests that this technique may have more merit than BWS-2-at least in the current study's context. Further research is required to identify the optimal method for determining the relative importance of attributes.
离散选择实验(DCEs)和最佳-最差尺度法(BWS)的轮廓案例(BWS案例2,或BWS-2)越来越多地用于引出对医疗保健干预措施的偏好。然而,哪种方法更适合偏好引出尚不清楚,尤其是在心理健康背景下。本研究旨在比较:(1)从DCE和BWS-2引出的偏好结果;以及(2)在基于网络的心理健康干预措施(W-MHIs)背景下,这两种方法对于管理年轻人焦虑和抑郁的可接受性。
参与者年龄在18至25岁之间,居住在澳大利亚,且自我报告在过去12个月内经历过焦虑和/或抑郁。他们还打算使用W-MHIs或之前有使用W-MHIs管理焦虑和/或抑郁的经历。通过社交媒体和迪肯大学公告栏进行在线招募。符合条件的参与者完成了一项包含八个DCE和八个BWS-2选择任务的在线调查。两种类型的选择任务都包含六个属性。使用多项逻辑回归模型来估计属性的偏好权重和相对重要性。根据退出率、完成时间、任务难度、理解程度以及参与者偏好的选择任务类型来评估可接受性。
共有198名参与者(平均年龄:21.42±2.3岁,64.65%为女性)完成了调查。DCE和BWS-2都预测成本是年轻人参与W-MHIs决策中最重要的属性。然而,这两种方法在属性的相对重要性以及属性内水平的偏好排名上存在差异。DCE被认为更容易理解和回答,近64%的参与者更喜欢它而不是BWS-2。
虽然两种方法都发现成本是与参与W-MHIs相关的最重要属性,但其他属性排名的差异表明DCE和BWS-2不一定可以互换。研究参与者对DCE格式的可接受性增加表明,至少在当前研究的背景下,这种技术可能比BWS-2更有优势。需要进一步研究以确定确定属性相对重要性的最佳方法。