IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0216075.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Preventing rheumatoid arthritis: Preferences for and predicted uptake of preventive treatments among high risk individuals

Author

Listed:
  • Mark Harrison
  • Luke Spooner
  • Nick Bansback
  • Katherine Milbers
  • Cheryl Koehn
  • Kam Shojania
  • Axel Finckh
  • Marie Hudson

Abstract

Objective: To understand preferences for and estimate the likely uptake of preventive treatments currently being evaluated in randomized controlled trials with individuals at increased risk of developing rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Methods: Focus groups were used to identify key attributes of potential preventive treatment for RA (reduction in risk of RA, how treatment is taken, chance of side effects, certainty in estimates, health care providers opinion). A web-based discrete choice experiment (DCE) was administered to people at-risk of developing RA, asking them to first choose their preferred of two hypothetical preventive RA treatments, and then between their preferred treatment and ‘no treatment for now.’ DCE data was analyzed using conditional logit regression to estimate the significance and relative importance of attributes in influencing preferences. Results: Two-hundred and eighty-eight first-degree relatives (60% female; 66% aged 18–39 years) completed all tasks in the survey. Fourteen out of fifteen attribute levels significantly influenced preferences for treatments. How treatment is taken (oral vs. infusion β0.983, p

Suggested Citation

  • Mark Harrison & Luke Spooner & Nick Bansback & Katherine Milbers & Cheryl Koehn & Kam Shojania & Axel Finckh & Marie Hudson, 2019. "Preventing rheumatoid arthritis: Preferences for and predicted uptake of preventive treatments among high risk individuals," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(4), pages 1-15, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0216075
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0216075
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0216075
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0216075&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0216075?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. John Horton & David Rand & Richard Zeckhauser, 2011. "The online laboratory: conducting experiments in a real labor market," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 14(3), pages 399-425, September.
    2. Jorien Veldwijk & Mattijs S Lambooij & Esther W de Bekker-Grob & Henriëtte A Smit & G Ardine de Wit, 2014. "The Effect of Including an Opt-Out Option in Discrete Choice Experiments," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(11), pages 1-9, November.
    3. Jeff Brazell & Christopher Diener & Ekaterina Karniouchina & William Moore & Válerie Séverin & Pierre-Francois Uldry, 2006. "The no-choice option and dual response choice designs," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 17(4), pages 255-268, December.
    4. Vick, Sandra & Scott, Anthony, 1998. "Agency in health care. Examining patients' preferences for attributes of the doctor-patient relationship," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 17(5), pages 587-605, October.
    5. 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.
    6. Gabriele Paolacci & Jesse Chandler & Panagiotis G. Ipeirotis, 2010. "Running experiments on Amazon Mechanical Turk," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 5(5), pages 411-419, August.
    7. Fifer, Simon & Rose, John M., 2016. "Can you ever be certain? Reducing hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments via respondent reported choice certaintyAuthor-Name: Beck, Matthew J," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 149-167.
    8. Berinsky, Adam J. & Huber, Gregory A. & Lenz, Gabriel S., 2012. "Evaluating Online Labor Markets for Experimental Research: Amazon.com's Mechanical Turk," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 20(3), pages 351-368, July.
    9. Alan Shiell & Penelope Hawe & Janelle Seymour, 1997. "Values and preferences are not necessarily the same," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 6(5), pages 515-518, September.
    10. Daniele Pacifico & Hong il Yoo, 2012. "A Stata module for estimating latent class conditional logit models via the Expectation-Maximization algorithm," Discussion Papers 2012-49, School of Economics, The University of New South Wales.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Magda Aguiar & Mark Harrison & Sarah Munro & Tiasha Burch & K. Julia Kaal & Marie Hudson & Nick Bansback & Tracey-Lea Laba, 2021. "Designing Discrete Choice Experiments Using a Patient-Oriented Approach," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 14(4), pages 389-397, July.

    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. Masha Shunko & Julie Niederhoff & Yaroslav Rosokha, 2018. "Humans Are Not Machines: The Behavioral Impact of Queueing Design on Service Time," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(1), pages 453-473, January.
    2. Haas, Nicholas & Hassan, Mazen & Mansour, Sarah & Morton, Rebecca B., 2021. "Polarizing information and support for reform," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 185(C), pages 883-901.
    3. Cantarella, Michele & Strozzi, Chiara, 2019. "Workers in the Crowd: The Labour Market Impact of the Online Platform Economy," IZA Discussion Papers 12327, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    4. Azzam, Tarek & Harman, Elena, 2016. "Crowdsourcing for quantifying transcripts: An exploratory study," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 63-73.
    5. Wladislaw Mill & Cornelius Schneider, 2023. "The Bright Side of Tax Evasion," CESifo Working Paper Series 10615, CESifo.
    6. Gandullia, Luca & Lezzi, Emanuela & Parciasepe, Paolo, 2020. "Replication with MTurk of the experimental design by Gangadharan, Grossman, Jones & Leister (2018): Charitable giving across donor types," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    7. Prissé, Benjamin & Jorrat, Diego, 2022. "Lab vs online experiments: No differences," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 100(C).
    8. Valerio Capraro & Hélène Barcelo, 2021. "Punishing defectors and rewarding cooperators: Do people discriminate between genders?," Journal of the Economic Science Association, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 7(1), pages 19-32, September.
    9. Lefgren, Lars J. & Sims, David P. & Stoddard, Olga B., 2016. "Effort, luck, and voting for redistribution," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 143(C), pages 89-97.
    10. Bhatt, Vipul & Smith, Angela M., 2025. "Overconfidence and performance: Evidence from a simple real-effort task," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 114(C).
    11. Tim Straub & Henner Gimpel & Florian Teschner & Christof Weinhardt, 2015. "How (not) to Incent Crowd Workers," Business & Information Systems Engineering: The International Journal of WIRTSCHAFTSINFORMATIK, Springer;Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V. (GI), vol. 57(3), pages 167-179, June.
    12. Nicolas Jacquemet & Alexander G James & Stéphane Luchini & James J Murphy & Jason F Shogren, 2021. "Do truth-telling oaths improve honesty in crowd-working?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(1), pages 1-18, January.
    13. Hiroki Ozono & Daisuke Nakama, 2022. "Effects of experimental situation on group cooperation and individual performance: Comparing laboratory and online experiments," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(4), pages 1-17, April.
    14. Brodeur, Abel & Cook, Nikolai & Heyes, Anthony, 2022. "We Need to Talk about Mechanical Turk: What 22,989 Hypothesis Tests Tell us about p-Hacking and Publication Bias in Online Experiments," I4R Discussion Paper Series 8, The Institute for Replication (I4R).
    15. Chandler, Dana & Kapelner, Adam, 2013. "Breaking monotony with meaning: Motivation in crowdsourcing markets," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 123-133.
    16. Irene Scopelliti & Carey K. Morewedge & Erin McCormick & H. Lauren Min & Sophie Lebrecht & Karim S. Kassam, 2015. "Bias Blind Spot: Structure, Measurement, and Consequences," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 61(10), pages 2468-2486, October.
    17. David Ronayne & Daniel Sgroi, 2018. "On the motivations for the dual-use of electronic and traditional cigarettes," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(12), pages 830-834, July.
    18. Harman, Elena & Azzam, Tarek, 2018. "Incorporating public values into evaluative criteria: Using crowdsourcing to identify criteria and standards," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 68-82.
    19. Christ, Margaret H. & Vance, Thomas W., 2018. "Cascading controls: The effects of managers’ incentives on subordinate effort to help or harm," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 20-32.
    20. Antonio A. Arechar & Simon Gächter & Lucas Molleman, 2018. "Conducting interactive experiments online," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 21(1), pages 99-131, March.

    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:plo:pone00:0216075. 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.