IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/patien/v14y2021i5d10.1007_s40271-021-00506-2.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Patient Preferences of Low-Dose Aspirin for Cardiovascular Disease and Colorectal Cancer Prevention in Italy: A Latent Class Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Tommi Tervonen

    (Patient-Centered Research, Evidera
    University of Groningen)

  • Pareen Vora

    (Epidemiology, Bayer AG)

  • Jaein Seo

    (Patient-Centered Research, Evidera)

  • Nicolas Krucien

    (Patient-Centered Research, Evidera)

  • Kevin Marsh

    (Patient-Centered Research, Evidera)

  • Raffaele De Caterina

    (University of Pisa, Pisa University Hospital
    Fondazione VillaSerena per la Ricerca, Città Sant’Angelo)

  • Ulrike Wissinger

    (Medical Affairs, Bayer AG)

  • Montse Soriano Gabarró

    (Epidemiology, Bayer AG)

Abstract

Background Patients taking low-dose aspirin to prevent cardiovascular disease (CVD) may also benefit from a reduced risk of colorectal cancer (CRC). Objective The aim was to examine the preferences of people eligible for preventive treatment with low-dose aspirin and the trade-offs they are willing to make between CVD prevention, CRC prevention, and treatment risks. Methods A cross-sectional study using a discrete choice experiment (DCE) survey was conducted in Italy in 2019 to elicit preferences for three benefit attributes (prevention of ischemic stroke, myocardial infarction, and CRC) and four risk attributes (intracranial and gastrointestinal bleeding, peptic ulcer, and severe allergic reaction) associated with use of low-dose aspirin. Latent class logit models were used to evaluate variation in treatment preferences. Results The DCE survey was completed by 1005 participants eligible for use of low-dose aspirin. A four-class model had the best fit for the primary CVD prevention group (n = 491), and a three-class model had the best fit for the secondary CVD prevention group (n = 514). For the primary CVD prevention group, where classes differed on age, education level, type 2 diabetes, exercise, and low-dose aspirin use, the most important attributes were intracranial bleeding (two classes), myocardial infarction (one class), and CRC (one class). For the secondary CVD prevention group, where classes differed on various comorbidities, self-reported health, exercise, and CVD medication use, the most important attributes were intracranial bleeding (two classes), myocardial infarction (one class), and gastrointestinal bleeding (one class). Conclusion Patient preferences for the benefits and risks of low-dose aspirin differ significantly among people eligible for treatment as primary or secondary CVD prevention.

Suggested Citation

  • Tommi Tervonen & Pareen Vora & Jaein Seo & Nicolas Krucien & Kevin Marsh & Raffaele De Caterina & Ulrike Wissinger & Montse Soriano Gabarró, 2021. "Patient Preferences of Low-Dose Aspirin for Cardiovascular Disease and Colorectal Cancer Prevention in Italy: A Latent Class Analysis," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 14(5), pages 661-672, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:patien:v:14:y:2021:i:5:d:10.1007_s40271-021-00506-2
    DOI: 10.1007/s40271-021-00506-2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40271-021-00506-2
    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/s40271-021-00506-2?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. Peter Ghijben & Emily Lancsar & Silva Zavarsek, 2014. "Preferences for Oral Anticoagulants in Atrial Fibrillation: a Best–Best Discrete Choice Experiment," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 32(11), pages 1115-1127, November.
    2. Krinsky, Itzhak & Robb, A Leslie, 1990. "On Approximating the Statistical Properties of Elasticities: A Correction," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 72(1), pages 189-190, February.
    3. Sarrias, Mauricio & Daziano, Ricardo, 2017. "Multinomial Logit Models with Continuous and Discrete Individual Heterogeneity in R: The gmnl Package," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 79(i02).
    4. Krinsky, Itzhak & Robb, A Leslie, 1986. "On Approximating the Statistical Properties of Elasticities," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 68(4), pages 715-719, November.
    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. Sarrias, Mauricio & Daziano, Ricardo A., 2018. "Individual-specific point and interval conditional estimates of latent class logit parameters," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 27(C), pages 50-61.
    2. Scaccia, Luisa & Marcucci, Edoardo & Gatta, Valerio, 2023. "Prediction and confidence intervals of willingness-to-pay for mixed logit models," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 54-78.
    3. Martínez-Espiñeira, Roberto & Lyssenko, Nikita, 2011. "Correcting for the endogeneity of pro-environment behavioral choices in contingent valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(8), pages 1435-1439, June.
    4. de Hond, Anne & Bakx, Pieter & Versteegh, Matthijs, 2019. "Can time heal all wounds? An empirical assessment of adaptation to functional limitations in an older population," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 222(C), pages 180-187.
    5. Wakamatsu, Mihoko & Shin, Kong Joo & Wilson, Clevo & Managi, Shunsuke, 2018. "Exploring a Gap between Australia and Japan in the Economic Valuation of Whale Conservation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 397-407.
    6. von Haefen, Roger H., 2003. "Incorporating observed choice into the construction of welfare measures from random utility models," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 45(2), pages 145-165, March.
    7. Grant Miller & Aureo de Paula & Christine Valente, 2020. "Subjective Expectations and Demand for Contraception," Bristol Economics Discussion Papers 20/724, School of Economics, University of Bristol, UK.
    8. Philipp Eisenhauer & James J. Heckman & Stefano Mosso, 2015. "Estimation Of Dynamic Discrete Choice Models By Maximum Likelihood And The Simulated Method Of Moments," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 56(2), pages 331-357, May.
    9. Tavárez, Héctor & Álamo, Carmen & Cortés,Mildred, 2020. "Differentiated coffees and their potential markets in Puerto Rico: An economic valuation approach," Economia Agraria y Recursos Naturales, Spanish Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 20(02), December.
    10. Rodrigo J. Tapia & Gerard Jong & Ana M. Larranaga & Helena B. Bettella Cybis, 2021. "Exploring Multiple‐discreteness in Freight Transport. A Multiple Discrete Extreme Value Model Application for Grain Consolidators in Argentina," Networks and Spatial Economics, Springer, vol. 21(3), pages 581-608, September.
    11. Marco Varkevisser & Stéphanie Geest & Frederik Schut, 2010. "Assessing hospital competition when prices don’t matter to patients: the use of time-elasticities," International Journal of Health Economics and Management, Springer, vol. 10(1), pages 43-60, March.
    12. Nikita Lyssenko & Roberto Mart󹑺-Espiñeira, 2012. "Respondent uncertainty in contingent valuation: the case of whale conservation in Newfoundland and Labrador," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 44(15), pages 1911-1930, May.
    13. Samare P. I. Huls & Emily Lancsar & Bas Donkers & Jemimah Ride, 2022. "Two for the price of one: If moving beyond traditional single‐best discrete choice experiments, should we use best‐worst, best‐best or ranking for preference elicitation?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(12), pages 2630-2647, December.
    14. Hicks, Robert L., 2002. "A Comparison Of Stated And Revealed Preference Methods For Fisheries Management," 2002 Annual meeting, July 28-31, Long Beach, CA 19853, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    15. Matthews, Yvonne, 2023. "A hybrid and hierarchical stated preference study of freshwater restoration in Aotearoa New Zealand," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 203(C).
    16. Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Rose, John M., 2013. "Confidence intervals of willingness-to-pay for random coefficient logit models," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 199-214.
    17. Søren Olsen, 2009. "Choosing Between Internet and Mail Survey Modes for Choice Experiment Surveys Considering Non-Market Goods," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 44(4), pages 591-610, December.
    18. Benoit Chèze & Charles Collet & Anthony Paris, 2021. "Estimating discrete choice experiments : theoretical fundamentals," CIRED Working Papers hal-03262187, HAL.
    19. Faustin, Vidogbèna & Adégbidi, Anselme A. & Garnett, Stephen T. & Koudandé, Delphin O. & Agbo, Valentin & Zander, Kerstin K., 2010. "Peace, health or fortune?: Preferences for chicken traits in rural Benin," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(9), pages 1848-1857, July.
    20. Jae Kim & Seung-Nam Kim & Soogwan Doh, 2015. "The distance decay of willingness to pay and the spatial distribution of benefits and costs for the ecological restoration of an urban branch stream in Ulsan, South Korea," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer;Western Regional Science Association, vol. 54(3), pages 835-853, May.

    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:14:y:2021:i:5:d:10.1007_s40271-021-00506-2. 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.