HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS REGISTER		Author Keyword(s) Vol Page [Advanced]

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: adc.2006.105353v1 93/2/110    most recent Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this link to a friend Similar articles in ADC Online Similar articles in PubMed Add article to my folders Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Google Scholar Articles by Ahmed, S F Articles by Blamires, C PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Ahmed, S F Articles by Blamires, C Topic Collections Editor's choice Related Article

Facilitating and understanding the family’s choice of injection device for growth hormone therapy by using conjoint analysis

¹ Royal Hospital for Sick Children, Yorkhill, Glasgow, UK
² Decision Modelling Consultancy Ltd, Lymm, Cheshire, UK

Correspondence to:
Dr S Faisal Ahmed, Department of Child Health, Royal Hospital for Sick Children, Yorkhill, Glasgow G3 8SJ, UK; s.f.ahmed{at}clinmed.gla.ac.uk

Background: Conjoint analysis involves the measurement of consumer preferences between choice alternatives.

Aims and objectives: To investigate the use of conjoint analysis in facilitating and understanding choice of growth hormone injection devices.

Method and subjects: 56 patients and their parents participated in an electronic, computer-based interview. The interview took a median time of 18 min (range 12–30) and allowed an immediate matching of injection devices to the family’s preferences.

Results: Amongst the key drivers of choice, lack of bruising was rated highest and designated an index of 100. Compared to this, the remaining attributes in order of desirability were: auto-injector (98), lack of pain (93), lightweight (88), silent (82), ready-mixed (77), ease of holding (69), telephone helpline (66), needle-free (62), small size (60), nurse support (47), hidden needle (45), stored in fridge (13) and home delivery (6). Out of the 17 families who had already chosen a device previously by discussion with the clinic nurse, the computer model placed their device either as first or second out of seven devices tested.

Conclusion: Adaptive or interactive conjoint analysis applied at the patient level can facilitate the choice-making process whilst providing an insight into the relative importance of the key features that influence choice.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				Petrou and McIntosh Measuring the benefits of growth hormone therapy in children: a role for preference-based approaches? Arch. Dis. Child., February 1, 2008; 93(2): 95 - 97. [Full Text] [PDF]