Collections > Master's Papers > Gillings School of Public Health > Using conjoint analysis to assess pediatric gastroenterologists' preferences regarding the management of pediatric Crohn's Disease

Background: Difficulties in diagnosis, treatment, and chronic management of Crohn's Disease (CD) may explain the variation in diagnostic evaluation and treatment therapies seen among providers. Our systematic literature review shows that published guidelines do not fully address management of pediatric CD. Therefore, using the Quality Improvement Model, we can systematically gather data from experts on the best way to change current CD management. Objective: To determine if conjoint analysis can summarize current beliefs among pediatric gastroenterologists on the relative importance of implementing evidence-based changes to improve outcomes of children with CD. Methods: We administered an online survey, Physicians Beliefs on Crohn's Management, to a convenience sample of 12 members of the Pediatric Inflammatory Bowel Disease (PIBD) Network. We asked participants to rank 16 different clinic scenarios based on which ones were most likely to improve patient outcomes and analyzed the ranking through conjoint analysis. Results: One physician completed the survey for a response rate of 8.3%. Results suggest that decreasing steroid use is most likely to improve outcomes while planned care and optimizing nutrition are least likely to improve outcomes. We found the largest effect of interaction to be between standardizing diagnostic evaluation and planned care. Conclusion: Conjoint analysis has the potential to summarize current beliefs among pediatric gastroenterologists regarding CD management, but before it can be used reliably, it needs to be tested on a larger sample.