IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/aphecp/v22y2024i3d10.1007_s40258-023-00869-7.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparing Preferences for Disease Profiles: A Discrete Choice Experiment from a US Societal Perspective

Author

Listed:
  • Karissa M. Johnston

    (Broadstreet HEOR)

  • Ivana F. Audhya

    (Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc.)

  • Jessica Dunne

    (Broadstreet HEOR)

  • David Feeny

    (McMaster University)

  • Peter Neumann

    (Tufts Medical Center)

  • Daniel C. Malone

    (The University of Utah)

  • Shelagh M. Szabo

    (Broadstreet HEOR)

  • Katherine L. Gooch

    (Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc.)

Abstract

Objectives There is increasing interest in expanding the elements of value to be considered when making health policy decisions. To help inform value frameworks, this study quantified preferences for disease attributes in a general public sample and examined which combination of attributes (disease profiles) are considered most important for research and treatment. Methods A discrete choice experiment (DCE) was conducted in a US general population sample, recruited through online consumer panels. Respondents were asked to select one of a set of health conditions they believed to be most important, characterized by attributes defined by a previous qualitative study: onset age; cause of disease; life expectancy; caregiver requirement; symptom burden (characterized by the Health Utilities Index with varying levels of ambulation independence, dexterity limitations, and degree of pain and discomfort); and disease prevalence. A fractional factorial DCE design was implemented using R, and 60 choice sets were generated (separated into blocks of 10 per participant). Data were analyzed using a mixed-logit regression model, and results used to assess the likelihood of preferring disease profiles. Based on individual attribute preferences, overall preferences for disease profiles, including a profile aligned with Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD), were compared. Results Fifty-two percent of respondents (n = 537) were female, and 70.6% were aged 18–54 years. Attributes considered most important were those related to life expectancy (odds ratio [OR], 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.88 [1.56–2.27] for a 50% reduction in remaining life expectancy vs no impact), and symptom burden (OR [95% CI] 1.84 [1.47–2.31] for severe vs mild burden). Greater importance was also found for pediatric onset, caregiver requirement, and diseases affecting more people. As an example of disease profile preferences, a DMD-like pediatric inherited disease with 50% reduction in life expectancy, extensive caregiver requirement, severe symptom burden, and 1:5000 prevalence had 2.37-fold higher odds of being selected as important versus an equivalent disease with adult onset and no life expectancy reduction. Conclusions Of disease attributes included in this DCE, respondents valued higher prevalence of disease, life expectancy and symptom burden as most important for prioritizing research and treatment. Based on expressed attribute preferences, a case study of an inherited pediatric disease involving substantial reductions to length and quality of life and requiring caregiver support has relatively high odds of being identified as important compared to diseases reflecting differing attribute profiles. These findings can help inform expansions of value frameworks by identifying important attributes from the societal perspective.

Suggested Citation

  • Karissa M. Johnston & Ivana F. Audhya & Jessica Dunne & David Feeny & Peter Neumann & Daniel C. Malone & Shelagh M. Szabo & Katherine L. Gooch, 2024. "Comparing Preferences for Disease Profiles: A Discrete Choice Experiment from a US Societal Perspective," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 22(3), pages 343-352, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:aphecp:v:22:y:2024:i:3:d:10.1007_s40258-023-00869-7
    DOI: 10.1007/s40258-023-00869-7
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40258-023-00869-7
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40258-023-00869-7?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • I1 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health
    • C1 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods and Methodology: General

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:aphecp:v:22:y:2024:i:3:d:10.1007_s40258-023-00869-7. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.