Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Use of Stated Preference Methods in HIV Treatment and Prevention Research in the United States: A Systematic Review

  • Substantive Review
  • Published:
AIDS and Behavior Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Stated preference (SP) methods are increasingly being applied to HIV-related research and continuously provide researchers with health utility scores of select healthcare products or services that populations consider important. Following PRISMA guidelines, we sought to understand how SP methods have been applied in HIV-related research. We conducted a systematic review to identify studies meeting the following criteria: SP method is clearly stated, conducted in the United States, was published between 01/01/2012 and 02/12/2022, and included adults aged 18 and over. Study design and SP method application were also examined. We identified six SP methods (e.g., Conjoint Analysis, Discrete Choice Experiment) across 18 studies, which were categorized into one of two groups: HIV prevention and HIV treatment-care. Categories of attributes used in SP methods largely focused on: administration, physical/health effects, financial, location, access, and external influences. SP methods are innovative tools capable of informing researchers on what populations consider most beneficial when deciding on treatment, care, or prevention options for HIV.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

Made available upon request. Requests should be emailed to crodr738@fiu.edu.

Code Availability

Not applicable.

References

  1. Kroes EP, Sheldon RJ. Stated preference methods: an introduction. JTEP. 1988;22(1):11–25.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Raghavarao D, Wiley JB, Chitturi P. Choice-based conjoint analysis: models and designs. 1st ed. New York: Chapman and Hall/CRC; 2010.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  3. Ryan M, Hughes J. Using conjoint analysis to assess women’s preferences for miscarriage management. Health Econ. 1997;6(3):261–73.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. O’Connell S, Queally M, Savage E, Murphy DM, Mc Carthy VJC. Preferences for support in managing symptoms of an asthma flare-up: a pilot study of a discrete choice experiment. J Asthma. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1080/02770903.2022.2054429.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Simblett S, Pennington M, Quaife M, Theochari E, Burke P, Brichetto G, et al. Key drivers and facilitators of the choice to use mHealth technology in people with neurological conditions: observational study. JMIR Form Res. 2022;6(5): e29509.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Zhang M, He X, Wu J, Wang X, Jiang Q, Xie F. How do treatment preferences of patients with cancer compare with those of oncologists and family members? Evidence from a discrete choice experiment in China. Value in Health. 2022;25(10):1768–77.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Fifer S, Ordman R, Briggs L, Cowley A. Patient and clinician preferences for genetic and genomic testing in non-small cell lung cancer: a discrete choice experiment. J Pers Med. 2022;12(6):879–98.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Yan J, Wei Y, Teng Y, Liu S, Li F, Bao S, et al. physician preferences and shared-decision making for the traditional chinese medicine treatment of lung cancer: a discrete-choice experiment study in China. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2022;16:1487–97.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Graf MA, Tanner DD, Swinyard WR. Optimizing the delivery of patient and physician satisfaction: a conjoint analysis approach. Health Care Manage Rev. 1993;18(4):34–43.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Ostermann J, Njau B, Hobbie A, Mtuy T, Masaki ML, Shayo A, et al. Using discrete choice experiments to design interventions for heterogeneous preferences: protocol for a pragmatic randomised controlled trial of a preference-informed, heterogeneity-focused, HIV testing offer for high-risk populations. BMJ Open. 2020;10(11): e039313.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Shrestha R, Alias H, Wong LP, Altice FL, Lim SH. Using individual stated-preferences to optimize HIV self-testing service delivery among men who have sex with men (MSM) in Malaysia: results from a conjoint-based analysis. BMC Public Health. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-020-09832-w.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Galárraga O, Kuo C, Mtukushe B, Maughan-Brown B, Harrison A, Hoare J. iSAY (incentives for South African Youth): stated preferences of young people living with HIV. Soc Sci Med. 2020;265: 113333.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Soekhai V, Whichello C, Levitan B, Veldwijk J, Pinto CA, Donkers B, et al. Methods for exploring and eliciting patient preferences in the medical product lifecycle: a literature review. Drug Discov Today. 2019;24(7):1324–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Louviere JJ, Flynn TN, Carson RT. Discrete choice experiments are not conjoint analysis. J Choice Model. 2010;3(3):57–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Jervis SM, Ennis JM, Drake MA. A comparison of adaptive choice-based conjoint and choice-based conjoint to determine key choice attributes of sour cream with limited sample size. J Sens Stud. 2012;27(6):451–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Sawtooth Software. What is the Difference Between ACA and CBC? 2019. https://sawtoothsoftware.com/resources/knowledge-base/sales-questions/what-is-the-difference-between-aca-and-cbc.

  17. Ali S, Ronaldson S. Ordinal preference elicitation methods in health economics and health services research: using discrete choice experiments and ranking methods. Br Med Bull. 2012;103(1):21–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Tran BX, Nguyen LH, Ohinmaa A, Maher RM, Nong VM, Latkin CA. Longitudinal and cross sectional assessments of health utility in adults with HIV/AIDS: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Health Serv Res. 2015;15:7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Beckham SW, Crossnohere NL, Gross M, Bridges JFP. Eliciting preferences for HIV prevention technologies: a systematic review. Patient. 2021;14(2):151–74.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Eshun-Wilson I, Kim HY, Schwartz S, Conte M, Glidden DV, Geng EH. Exploring relative preferences for HIV service features using discrete choice experiments: a synthetic review. Curr HIV/AIDS Rep. 2020;17(5):467–77.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Humphrey JM, Naanyu V, MacDonald KR, Wools-Kaloustian K, Zimet GD. Stated-preference research in HIV: a scoping review. PLoS ONE. 2019;14(10): e0224566.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. McGrady ME, Pai ALH, Prosser LA. Using discrete choice experiments to develop and deliver patient-centered psychological interventions: a systematic review. Health psychol. 2021;15(2):314–32.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Sharma M, Ong JJ, Celum C, Terris-Prestholt F. Heterogeneity in individual preferences for HIV testing: a systematic literature review of discrete choice experiments. EClinicalMedicine. 2020;29–30: 100653.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Syst Rev. 2021;10(1):89.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Conte M, Eshun-Wilson I, Geng E, Imbert E, Hickey MD, Havlir D, et al. Brief Report: Understanding preferences for HIV care among patients experiencing homelessness or unstable housing: a discrete choice experiment. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2020;85(4):444–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Ostermann J, Mühlbacher A, Brown DS, Regier DA, Hobbie A, Weinhold A, et al. Heterogeneous patient preferences for modern antiretroviral therapy: results of a discrete choice experiment. Value Health. 2020;23(7):851–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Lyons A, Bilker WB, Hines J, Gross R. Effect of format on comprehension of adherence data in chronic disease: a cross-sectional study in HIV. Patient Educ Couns. 2016;99(1):154–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Yelverton V, Ostermann J, Hobbie A, Madut D, Thielman N. A mixed methods approach to understanding antiretroviral treatment preferences: what do patients really want? AIDS Patient Care STDS. 2018;32(9):340–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Shumway M, Luetkemeyer AF, Peters MG, Johnson MO, Napoles TM, Riley ED. Direct-acting antiviral treatment for HIV/HCV patients in safety net settings: patient and provider preferences. AIDS Care. 2019;31(11):1340–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Jones DL, Cook R, Potter JE, Miron-Shatz T, Chakhtoura N, Spence A, et al. Fertility desires among women living with HIV. PLoS ONE. 2016;11(9): e0160190.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Simoni JM, Tapia K, Lee SJ, Graham SM, Beima-Sofie K, Mohamed ZH, et al. A conjoint analysis of the acceptability of targeted long-acting injectable antiretroviral therapy among persons living with HIV in the U.S. AIDS Behav. 2020;24(4):1226–36.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Lee S-J, Brooks R, Bolan RK, Flynn R. Assessing willingness to test for HIV among men who have sex with men using conjoint analysis, evidence for uptake of the FDA-approved at-home HIV test. AIDS Care. 2013;25(12):1592–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Lee SJ, Newman PA, Comulada WS, Cunningham WE, Duan N. Use of conjoint analysis to assess HIV vaccine acceptability: feasibility of an innovation in the assessment of consumer health-care preferences. Int J STD AIDS. 2012;23(4):235–41.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Primrose RJ, Zaveri T, Bakke AJ, Ziegler GR, Moskowitz HR, Hayes JE. Drivers of vaginal drug delivery system acceptability from internet-based conjoint analysis. PLoS ONE. 2016;11(3): e0150896.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Schieffer RJ, Bryndza Tfaily E, D’Aquila R, Greene GJ, Carballo-Diéguez A, Giguere R, et al. Conjoint analysis of user acceptability of sustained long-acting pre-exposure prophylaxis for HIV. AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses. 2021;38(4):336–45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Shrestha R, Karki P, Altice FL, Dubov O, Fraenkel L, Huedo-Medina T, et al. Measuring acceptability and preferences for implementation of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) using conjoint analysis: an application to primary HIV prevention among high risk drug users. AIDS Behav. 2018;22(4):1228–38.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Sharma A, Stephenson RB, White D, Sullivan PS. Acceptability and intended usage preferences for six HIV testing options among internet-using men who have sex with men. Springerplus. 2014;3:109.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Zaveri T, Primrose RJ, Surapaneni L, Ziegler GR, Hayes JE. Firmness perception influences women’s preferences for vaginal suppositories. Pharmaceutics. 2014;6(3):512–29.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Asiago-Reddy EA, McPeak J, Scarpa R, Braksmajer A, Ruszkowski N, McMahon J, et al. Perceived access to PrEP as a critical step in engagement: a qualitative analysis and discrete choice experiment among young men who have sex with men. PLoS ONE. 2022;17(1): e0258530.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Dubov A, Ogunbajo A, Altice FL, Fraenkel L. Optimizing access to Prep based on MSM preferences: results of a discrete choice experiment. AIDS Care. 2019;31(5):545–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Gutierrez JI, Dubov A, Altice FL, Vlahov D. Preferences for pre-exposure prophylaxis among U.S. military men who have sex with men: results of an adaptive choice based conjoint analysis study. Mil Med Res. 2021;8(1):32.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Van Gerwen OT, Talluri R, Camino AFMS, Mena LA, Chamberlain N, Ford EW, et al. Human immunodeficiency virus/sexually transmitted infection testing preferences for young black men who have sex with men in the Southeastern United States: implications for a post-COVID-19 era. Sex Transm Dis. 2022;49(3):208–15.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. What is the Ending the HIV Epidemic in the U.S. Initiative? 2021 https://ahead.hiv.gov/about-ehe.

  44. Orme BK. Sample size issues for conjoint analysis. Getting started with conjoint analysis: strategies for product design and pricing research. 4th ed. Madison, Wis.: Research Publishers LLC; 2019.

  45. Bridges JFP, Hauber AB, Marshall D, Lloyd A, Prosser LA, Regier DA, et al. Conjoint analysis applications in health—a checklist: a report of the ISPOR Good Research Practices for Conjoint Analysis Task Force. Value Health. 2011;14(4):403–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Halversen C. Sawtooth Software, editor2020 December 29, 2020. https://sawtoothsoftware.com/resources/blog/posts/sample-size-rules-of-thumb.

  47. Sawtooth Software. Discover. Provo, UT 2022.

  48. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. HIV Surveillance Report, 2020 updated May 2022. Vol. 33. https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/library/reports/hiv-surveillance.html.

  49. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. HIV and Transgender People: Prevention Challenges 2022 [cited 2022 July 17]. https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/group/gender/transgender/prevention-challenges.html.

  50. Reisner SL, Jadwin-Cakmak L, White Hughto JM, Martinez M, Salomon L, Harper GW. Characterizing the HIV prevention and care continua in a sample of transgender youth in the U.S. AIDS Behav. 2017;21(12):3312–27.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. Creswell JW, Clark VLP. Designing and conducting mixed methods research. London: Sage publications; 2017.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This work was supported by the Veteran’s Fellowship provided by the Graduate School at Florida International University.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Health Promotion and Disease Prevention, Robert Stempel College of Public Health and Social Work, Florida International University, 11200 SW 8th St, AHC-5 Ste. 405, Miami, FL, 33199, USA

    Christofer A. Rodriguez & Jason W. Mitchell

Authors
  1. Christofer A. Rodriguez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jason W. Mitchell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

See data extraction paragraph in Methods. CR lead manuscript development, including table creation, and wrote the first draft. JM edited and finalized the writing.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christofer A. Rodriguez.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors have no relevant financial, non-financial, or competing interests to disclose.

Ethical Approval

Not applicable.

Consent to Participate

Not applicable.

Consent for Publication

Not applicable.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 16 KB)

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rodriguez, C.A., Mitchell, J.W. Use of Stated Preference Methods in HIV Treatment and Prevention Research in the United States: A Systematic Review. AIDS Behav 27, 2328–2359 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10461-022-03962-5

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10461-022-03962-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation