IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/patien/v12y2019i2d10.1007_s40271-018-0330-8.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How Do Members of the Duchenne and Becker Muscular Dystrophy Community Perceive a Discrete-Choice Experiment Incorporating Uncertain Treatment Benefit? An Application of Research as an Event

Author

Listed:
  • John F. P. Bridges

    (The Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health
    The Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health)

  • Jui-Hua Tsai

    (The Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health)

  • Ellen Janssen

    (The Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health)

  • Norah L. Crossnohere

    (The Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health)

  • Ryan Fischer

    (Parent Project Muscular Dystrophy)

  • Holly Peay

    (The Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health
    Parent Project Muscular Dystrophy
    RTI International)

Abstract

Background Best–worst scaling methods have been used in several Duchenne and Becker muscular dystrophy (DBMD) studies to quantify patient and caregiver priorities and preferences and promote patient-focused drug development (PFDD). We sought to assess the extent to which different members of the DBMD community would accept a discrete-choice experiment (DCE) that incorporates uncertainty regarding individual-level benefit. Methods A community advisory board encouraged the development and testing of a DCE to further examine treatment preferences in DBMD and to facilitate the inclusion of a policy-relevant uncertainty attribute. The DCE assessed preferences across a primary outcome (muscle strength) and several risks (uncertainty regarding treatment benefit, kidney damage risk, and fracture risk). The single instrument was tested among adult patients, caregivers, and professionals at the national Parent Project Muscular Dystrophy annual meeting. The DCE was analyzed using conditional logit. Instrument acceptability was evaluated using a previously developed set of questions assessing ease of understanding and answering, and if answers reflected the respondents’ real preferences. We proposed a 75% agreement rate as a threshold of acceptability, and used a Z score to assess if this was met, exceeded, or rejected. Results A total of 161 people completed the survey including 9 patients, 87 caregivers, and 65 professionals. Patients reported high acceptability across all evaluation items (p values > 0.21). Caregivers and professionals exceeded the benchmark of acceptability on understanding and reflecting real preferences (p

Suggested Citation

  • John F. P. Bridges & Jui-Hua Tsai & Ellen Janssen & Norah L. Crossnohere & Ryan Fischer & Holly Peay, 2019. "How Do Members of the Duchenne and Becker Muscular Dystrophy Community Perceive a Discrete-Choice Experiment Incorporating Uncertain Treatment Benefit? An Application of Research as an Event," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 12(2), pages 247-257, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:patien:v:12:y:2019:i:2:d:10.1007_s40271-018-0330-8
    DOI: 10.1007/s40271-018-0330-8
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40271-018-0330-8
    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/s40271-018-0330-8?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.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. John Bridges & Elizabeth Kinter & Annette Schmeding & Ina Rudolph & Axel Mühlbacher, 2011. "Can Patients Diagnosed with Schizophrenia Complete Choice-Based Conjoint Analysis Tasks?," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 4(4), pages 267-275, December.
    2. Mark Harrison & Dan Rigby & Caroline Vass & Terry Flynn & Jordan Louviere & Katherine Payne, 2014. "Risk as an Attribute in Discrete Choice Experiments: A Systematic Review of the Literature," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 7(2), pages 151-170, June.
    3. Jane Hall & Patricia Kenny & Madeleine King & Jordan Louviere & Rosalie Viney & Angela Yeoh, 2002. "Using stated preference discrete choice modelling to evaluate the introduction of varicella vaccination," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(5), pages 457-465, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Emily Lancsar & Peter Burge, 2014. "Choice modelling research in health economics," Chapters, in: Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly (ed.), Handbook of Choice Modelling, chapter 28, pages 675-687, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    2. Joanna Coast & Hareth Al‐Janabi & Eileen J. Sutton & Susan A. Horrocks & A. Jane Vosper & Dawn R. Swancutt & Terry N. Flynn, 2012. "Using qualitative methods for attribute development for discrete choice experiments: issues and recommendations," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(6), pages 730-741, June.
    3. Mahieu, Pierre-Alexandre & Andersson, Henrik & Beaumais, Olivier & Crastes dit Sourd, Romain & Hess, François-Charles & Wolff, François-Charles, 2017. "Stated preferences: a unique database composed of 1657 recent published articles in journals related to agriculture, environment, or health," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), vol. 98(3), November.
    4. Joachim Marti, 2012. "Assessing preferences for improved smoking cessation medications: a discrete choice experiment," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 13(5), pages 533-548, October.
    5. Patricia Kenny & Stephen Goodall & Deborah J. Street & Jessica Greene, 2017. "Choosing a Doctor: Does Presentation Format Affect the Way Consumers Use Health Care Performance Information?," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 10(6), pages 739-751, December.
    6. Lancsar, Emily & Louviere, Jordan & Flynn, Terry, 2007. "Several methods to investigate relative attribute impact in stated preference experiments," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 64(8), pages 1738-1753, April.
    7. Marta Trapero-Bertran & Beatriz Rodríguez-Martín & Julio López-Bastida, 2019. "What attributes should be included in a discrete choice experiment related to health technologies? A systematic literature review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(7), pages 1-15, July.
    8. Wolf Rogowski & Katherine Payne & Petra Schnell-Inderst & Andrea Manca & Ursula Rochau & Beate Jahn & Oguzhan Alagoz & Reiner Leidl & Uwe Siebert, 2015. "Concepts of ‘Personalization’ in Personalized Medicine: Implications for Economic Evaluation," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 33(1), pages 49-59, January.
    9. Rosalie Viney & Elizabeth Savage, 2006. "Health care policy evaluation: empirical analysis of the restrictions implied by Quality Adjusted Life Years, CHERE Working Paper 2006/10," Working Papers 2006/10, CHERE, University of Technology, Sydney.
    10. Grewal, Ini & Lewis, Jane & Flynn, Terry & Brown, Jackie & Bond, John & Coast, Joanna, 2006. "Developing attributes for a generic quality of life measure for older people: Preferences or capabilities?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 62(8), pages 1891-1901, April.
    11. Alessandro Mengoni & Chiara Seghieri & Sabina Nuti, 2013. "The application of discrete choice experiments in health economics: a systematic review of the literature," Working Papers 201301, Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna of Pisa, Istituto di Management.
    12. Nick Bansback & Mark Harrison & Carlo Marra, 2016. "Does Introducing Imprecision around Probabilities for Benefit and Harm Influence the Way People Value Treatments?," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 36(4), pages 490-502, May.
    13. Kjaer, Trine & Gyrd-Hansen, Dorte, 2008. "Preference heterogeneity and choice of cardiac rehabilitation program: Results from a discrete choice experiment," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 85(1), pages 124-132, January.
    14. Caroline Vass & Dan Rigby & Katherine Payne, 2019. "“I Was Trying to Do the Maths”: Exploring the Impact of Risk Communication in Discrete Choice Experiments," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 12(1), pages 113-123, February.
    15. Axel C. Mühlbacher & Andrew Sadler & Christin Juhnke, 2021. "Personalized diabetes management: what do patients with diabetes mellitus prefer? A discrete choice experiment," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 22(3), pages 425-443, April.
    16. Kabindra Regmi & Dinesh Kaphle & Sabina Timilsina & Nik Annie Afiqah Tuha, 2018. "Application of Discrete-Choice Experiment Methods in Tobacco Control: A Systematic Review," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 2(1), pages 5-17, March.
    17. Waleska Sigüernza & Petr Mariel, 2013. "Valoración económica de los servicios sanitarios en la Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco," Hacienda Pública Española / Review of Public Economics, IEF, vol. 207(4), pages 71-99, December.
    18. Ellen M. Janssen & Jodi B. Segal & John F. P. Bridges, 2016. "A Framework for Instrument Development of a Choice Experiment: An Application to Type 2 Diabetes," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 9(5), pages 465-479, October.
    19. Anupama Sharma & Shakti N Menon & V Sasidevan & Sitabhra Sinha, 2019. "Epidemic prevalence information on social networks can mediate emergent collective outcomes in voluntary vaccine schemes," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(5), pages 1-18, May.
    20. Bansal, Prateek & Kessels, Roselinde & Krueger, Rico & Graham, Daniel J., 2022. "Preferences for using the London Underground during the COVID-19 pandemic," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 160(C), pages 45-60.

    More about this item

    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:patien:v:12:y:2019:i:2:d:10.1007_s40271-018-0330-8. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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.