&lt;p&gt;How psychological distance of a study sample in discrete choice experiments affects preference measurement: a colorectal cancer screening case study&lt;/p&gt;

Veldwijk, Jorien; Groothuis-Oudshoorn, Catharina Gerarda Maria; Kihlbom, Ulrik; Langenskiöld, Sophie; Dekker, Evelien; Kallenberg, Frank G.J.; Wit, G. Ardine de; Lambooij, Mattijs

doi:10.2147/ppa.s180994

Cited by 14 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Due to the smaller number of non-patient studies, and methodological heterogeneity across these studies, it is difficult to draw conclusions about differences in the relative preferences of patient and non-patient participants. It is possible that different levels of first-hand experience with a disease or personal experience of treatment side effects could influence preference results [ 48 ]. Direct comparisons between different samples with different levels of disease proximity are now needed, especially in the context of studies of preferences for preventive treatments.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Systematic review of quantitative preference studies of treatments for rheumatoid arthritis among patients and at-risk populations

et al. 2022

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Treatments used for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) are under investigation for their efficacy to prevent RA in at risk groups. It is therefore important to understand treatment preferences of those at risk. We systematically reviewed quantitative preference studies of drugs to treat, or prevent RA, to inform the design of further studies and trials of RA prevention. Stated preference studies for RA treatment or prevention were identified through a search of five databases. Study characteristics and results were extracted, and the relative importance of different types of treatment attributes was compared across populations. Twenty three studies were included 20 of RA treatments (18 of patients; 2 of the general public) and 3 prevention studies with first-degree relatives (FDRs). Benefits, risks, administration method and cost (when included) were important determinants of treatment choice. A benefit was more important than a risk attribute in half of the studies of RA treatment that included a benefit attribute and 2/3 studies of RA prevention. There was variability in the relative importance of attributes across the few prevention studies. In studies with non-patient participants, attributes describing confidence in treatment effectiveness/safety were more important determinants of choice than in studies with patients. Most preference studies relating to RA are of treatments for established RA. Few studies examine preferences for treatments to prevent RA. Given intense research focus on RA prevention, additional preference studies in this context are needed. Variation in treatment preferences across different populations is not well understood and direct comparisons are needed.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Systematic review of quantitative preference studies of treatments for rheumatoid arthritis among patients and at-risk populations

et al. 2022

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Due to the smaller number of non-patient studies, and methodological heterogeneity across these studies, it is di cult to draw conclusions about differences in the relative preferences of patient and non-patient participants. It is possible that different levels of rst hand-experience with a disease, or personal experience of treatment side effects could in uence preference results (39). Direct comparisons between different samples with different levels of disease proximity are now needed, especially in the context of studies of preferences for preventive treatments.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Systematic review of quantitative preference studies of treatments for rheumatoid arthritis among patients and at risk populations.

Simons

Caplan

DiSantostefano

et al. 2021

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Treatments used for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) are under investigation for their efficacy to prevent RA in at risk groups. It is therefore important to understand treatment preferences of those at risk. We systematically reviewed quantitative preference studies of drugs to treat, or prevent RA, to inform the design of further studies and trials of RA prevention. Stated preference studies for RA treatment or prevention were identified through a search of five databases. Study characteristics and results were extracted and the relative importance of different types of treatment attributes was compared across populations. Twenty studies were included: 17 of RA treatments (15 of patients; 2 of the general public), and 3 prevention studies with first-degree relatives (FDRs). Benefits, risks, administration method and cost (when included) were important determinants of treatment choice. A benefit was more important than a risk attribute in 8/15 studies of RA treatment that included a benefit attribute, and 2/3 studies of RA prevention. There was variability in the relative importance of attributes across the few prevention studies. In studies with non-patient participants, attributes describing confidence in treatment effectiveness/safety were more important determinants of choice than in studies with patients. Most preference studies relating to RA are of treatments for established RA. Few studies examine preferences for treatments to prevent RA. Given intense research focus on RA prevention, additional preference studies in this context are needed. Variation in treatment preferences across different populations is not well understood and direct comparisons are needed.

show abstract

“…The assessment of preferences of FDRs at increased risk of RA and a general population that is told to assume an increased risk of RA allows for comparisons between groups that are expected to vary in their familiarity with and understanding of RA. 27 Public misperceptions around the identity and severity of RA are common. 28 29 A small number of qualitative studies have explored perceptions of preventive intervention for RA, [30][31][32][33] but quantitative evidence is limited.…”

Section: Clinical Backgroundmentioning

confidence: 99%

Treatment preferences for preventive interventions for rheumatoid arthritis: protocol of a mixed methods case study for the Innovative Medicines Initiative PREFER project

et al. 2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionAmidst growing consensus that stakeholder decision-making during drug development should be informed by an understanding of patient preferences, the Innovative Medicines Initiative project ‘Patient Preferences in Benefit-Risk Assessments during the Drug Life Cycle’ (PREFER) is developing evidence-based recommendations about how and when patient preferences should be integrated into the drug life cycle. This protocol describes a PREFER clinical case study which compares two preference elicitation methodologies across several populations and provides information about benefit–risk trade-offs by those at risk of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) for preventive interventions.Methods and analysisThis mixed methods study will be conducted in three countries (UK, Germany, Romania) to assess preferences of (1) first-degree relatives (FDRs) of patients with RA and (2) members of the public. Focus groups using nominal group techniques (UK) and ranking surveys (Germany and Romania) will identify and rank key treatment attributes. Focus group transcripts will be analysed thematically using the framework method and average rank orders calculated. These results will inform the treatment attributes to be assessed in a survey including a discrete choice experiment (DCE) and a probabilistic threshold technique (PTT). The survey will also include measures of sociodemographic variables, health literacy, numeracy, illness perceptions and beliefs about medicines. The survey will be administered to (1) 400 FDRs of patients with RA (UK); (2) 100 FDRs of patients with RA (Germany); and (3) 1000 members of the public in each of UK, Germany and Romania. Logit-based approaches will be used to analyse the DCE and imputation and interval regression for the PTT.Ethics and disseminationThis study has been approved by the London-Hampstead Research Ethics Committee (19/LO/0407) and the Ethics Committee of the Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg (92_17 B). The protocol has been approved by the PREFER expert review board. The results will be disseminated widely and will inform the PREFER recommendations.

show abstract

<p>How psychological distance of a study sample in discrete choice experiments affects preference measurement: a colorectal cancer screening case study</p>

Cited by 14 publications

References 34 publications

Systematic review of quantitative preference studies of treatments for rheumatoid arthritis among patients and at-risk populations

Systematic review of quantitative preference studies of treatments for rheumatoid arthritis among patients and at-risk populations

Systematic review of quantitative preference studies of treatments for rheumatoid arthritis among patients and at risk populations.

Treatment preferences for preventive interventions for rheumatoid arthritis: protocol of a mixed methods case study for the Innovative Medicines Initiative PREFER project

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About