OP01 Convergent Validity Between Discrete Choice Experiment And Other Stated Preference Methods: A Multistudy Comparison

Introduction To assess convergent validity of stated preference methods in studies where they were used to elicit patient preferences for informing medical product decisions. Methods In four studies, two patients with neuromuscular diseases (NMD; n = 140, Discrete Choice Experiment [DCE] and Best-Worst Scaling [BWS] case 2), diabetes (n 495, DCE swing weighting [SW]), myocardial infarction (MI; 335, BWS 1), rheumatoid arthritis (RA; 982, probabilistic threshold technique [PTT]). each study, results the compared using a normalized measure which confidence intervals (CIs) estimated nonparametric bootstrapping 500 samples. Normalized measures comprised mean relative attribute importance weights (NMD studies), uptake probability (MI study), or maximum acceptable risk (RA study). Results all ranking showed similar patterns between other most important attributes. The same had highest three out studies. Significant differences found ranges study methods: 4.1–43.4 versus 8.9–24.7 2 NMD; 3.8–49.7 11.9–16.8 SW diabetes; 2.0–85.5 0.2–69.0 1 MI; -3.5–49.2 1.1–18.1 PTT RA. Conclusions Preferences differed significantly implying limited validity. substantially larger outcome methods, are likely due mechanics bias related methods. Since none is considered golden standard measuring as true unknown, further necessary compare determine internal data quality, potentially external