Comparison of Rating Scale, Time Tradeoff, and Conjoint Analysis Methods for Assessment of Preferences in Prostate Cancer.

Background. Conjoint analysis is widely used in studies of consumer preference but has only recently been applied to measure patient utilities for health outcomes. We compared the reliability, feasibility, and internal and predictive validity of conjoint scaling methods against better established rating scale and time tradeoff methods for assessing prostate cancer utilities in men at risk for prostate cancer. Methods. In total, 194 men who were biopsy negative for prostate cancer were randomly assigned to complete 2 preference assessment modules, either conjoint analysis and a rating scale module or conjoint analysis and a time tradeoff module. Each participant's most important attribute was identified and evaluated in relation to age group (age <65, age 65 and older), education (high school, some college, college graduate), race/ethnicity (white, black, Latino), and relationship status (in significant relationship v. not). The methods were also evaluated in terms of ease of use and satisfaction. Results. Rating scales were rated as easiest to use and respondents were more satisfied with rating scales and conjoint in comparison to time tradeoffs. Rating scales and conjoint measures demonstrated significantly higher internal validity compared to time tradeoff when evaluated through R2 of the fitted utility function. The 3 methods were similar in terms of predictive validity, but conjoint analysis outperformed the rating scale method when patients were presented with novel combinations of attribute levels (68% correct v. 43%, P = 0.003). Conclusions. Rating scales and conjoint analysis exercises offer greater ease of use and higher satisfaction when measuring patient preferences in men biopsied for prostate cancer in comparison to time tradeoff exercises. Conjoint analysis may be a more robust approach to preference measurement for men at risk for prostate cancer.

Decisional Quality in Patients With Small Renal Masses.

OBJECTIVE: To measure decisional quality in patients being counseled on treatment for small renal masses and identify potential areas of improvement. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 73 patients diagnosed with small renal masses at the University of California, Los Angeles Health completed an instrument measuring decisional conflict, patient satisfaction with care, disease-specific knowledge, and patient impression that shared decision-making occurred in the visit after counseling by a specialist. Participant characteristics were compared between those with high and low decisional conflict using chi-square or Student t test (or Wilcoxon rank-sum test). RESULTS: Participants were mostly older (mean age 63.5), white (84%), in a relationship (61%), and unemployed or retired (63%). Mean knowledge score was 59% correct. The mean (standard deviation) decisional conflict score was 16.4 (18.4) indicating low levels of decisional conflict but with a wide range of scores. Comparing participants with high decisional conflict with those with low decisional conflict, there were significant differences in knowledge scores (Wilcoxon P = .0069), patient satisfaction with care (P = .0011), and perceived shared decision-making (P <.0001). CONCLUSION: Patients with small renal masses generally have low levels of decisional conflict and can identify a preferred treatment after a physician visit. However, both groups lack overall knowledge about their disease even after counseling, and thus may be heavily influenced by paternalistic care. Those patients with decisional conflicts are less likely to perceive their care as satisfactory and are less likely to be involved in decision-making.

Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing Analysis of Urological Stone Disease.

INTRODUCTION: The documented increasing incidence of nephrolithiasis in the United States will likely be associated with significant economic impact. Time-driven activity-based costing is an analytical method that has been successfully adapted from industrial analysis for use in health care. Using this costing approach we characterized the cost of 4 stone treatment modalities at our academic medical center, including trial of passage, semirigid ureteroscopy, flexible ureteroscopy and extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. METHODS: We developed process mapping for urological evaluation, treatment and followup of renal or ureteral stones less than 10 mm in size for each treatment method. We calculated cost of resources, equipment, disposables, personnel and space used for each step in the process. Cost was based on the capacity of each resource and the amount of time required for the treatment process. RESULTS: The cost for trial of stone passage, $389, was expectedly lower than for surgical interventions and was mainly driven by clinic visit costs. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and semirigid and flexible ureteroscopy costs were $4,367, $4,830 and $5,356, respectively. Intraoperative disposables and personnel were the top contributors to overall treatment costs. CONCLUSIONS: Conservative management is less costly than surgical interventions. Flexible ureteroscopy is the most expensive of surgical interventions. We describe the first time-driven activity-based cost analysis of stone management to our knowledge. Identifying the main drivers of cost can help to improve the value of urological care and improve future cost-effectiveness analyses.