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

Abstract

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 choicemaking process whilst providing an insight into the relative importance of the key features that influence choice.

Identifying Potentially Modifiable Factors Associated with Treatment Non-Adherence in Paediatric Growth Hormone Deficiency: A Systematic Review

“…The discomfort or pain associated with daily injections [2] over a long duration [17, 31] was also found by several studies to be related to poor levels of adherence. Despite the increase in the choice of injection delivery devices [4, 41, 42], the association between patient choice and adherence was found to be inconsistent. Whilst one study reported that the lack of choice of injection device [17] was associated with greater non-adherence, 4 studies found that the type of injection device was not associated with adherence [2, 17, 31, 32] or with the type of rhGH product used [32].…”

Understanding the Growth Hormone Therapy Adherence Paradigm: A Systematic Review

“…GH therapy is usually administered as a daily subcutaneous injection of rhGH [3] and to personalise therapy, the pharmaceutical industry has developed a number of different injection devices that vary in size, shape, injection product, dose range and increments, storage, requirement for reconstitution, method of injection (manual, automatic or needle-free) and associated support services [45]. As of 2012, seven manufacturers have marketing authorisations for rhGH [5], and in some countries, a choice of up to twelve different devices is offered at paediatric endocrinology centres.…”

Modeling the Information Preferences of Parents of Children with Mental Health Problems: A Discrete Choice Conjoint Experiment

“…Although these methods were developed by mathematical psychologists (Luce and Tukey 1964), marketing researchers adopted them to involve consumers in product and service design (Orme 2006). Conjoint methods have been extended to involve patients in health service design (Oudhoff et al 2007; Ryan and Farrar 2000;Ryan and Gerard 2003), explore treatment preferences (Ahmed et al 2007;Dwight-Johnson et al 2004;Fraenkel et al 2006;Singh et al 1998), model health outcome choices (Ryan 1999;Stanek et al 2000), study clinical decisions (McGregor et al 2007), and involve students in design of medical education programs (Cunningham et al 2006). We know of only one other study that has applied DCEs to the design of CMH services (Spoth and Redmond 1993).…”