IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0309666.html

Treatment preferences in spinal muscular atrophy: A swing weighting study for caregivers of patients with SMA types 1 and 2

Author

Listed:
  • Anish Patel
  • Walter Toro
  • Siobhan Bourke
  • Yemi Oluboyede
  • Sylvaine Barbier
  • Nataliya Bogoeva
  • Sandra P Reyna
  • Omar Dabbous

Abstract

Spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) is a genetic neuromuscular disorder characterized by skeletal muscle weakness and atrophy. Patients with SMA types 1 and 2 develop severe disabilities conferring substantial patient and caregiver burden. Caregiver treatment characteristic preferences are useful for informing treatment choices and improving adherence. We aimed to identify drivers of SMA treatment preference from the perspective of caregivers of patients with SMA types 1 or 2 in the United States. We quantified the relative importance of different treatment characteristics and compared preferences for hypothetical treatment scenarios. Treatment attributes and attribute levels elicited were based on a literature search and interviews with caregivers and health care professionals. The most important treatment characteristics from the perspective of health care professionals and caregivers were identified and used in a survey to quantify relative importance for caregivers. Caregivers completed surveys regarding their preferences using swing weighting methodology. These results were used to estimate the relative value of four hypothetical SMA treatment scenarios exploring different modes of treatment administration. The swing weighting survey, completed by 20 caregivers, demonstrated that the attributes driving treatment preference were reduction in permanent ventilation needs and risk of severe adverse events, followed by treatment access (including cost coverage and availability), increased ability to sit without support, and less treatment administration burden. The hypothetical SMA treatment scenarios with the highest relative value offered an easier mode of administration, lowest risk of severe adverse events, less need of permanent ventilation, and highest ability of patients to feed and sit without support. Our findings suggest that caregivers prefer a treatment with reduced clinical burden and risk in which the cost is covered and treatment is available in the short term. These results can provide important contextual information for decision-makers and help promote patient-centered care for patients with SMA.

Suggested Citation

  • Anish Patel & Walter Toro & Siobhan Bourke & Yemi Oluboyede & Sylvaine Barbier & Nataliya Bogoeva & Sandra P Reyna & Omar Dabbous, 2024. "Treatment preferences in spinal muscular atrophy: A swing weighting study for caregivers of patients with SMA types 1 and 2," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 19(10), pages 1-20, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0309666
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0309666
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0309666
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0309666&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0309666?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. Aubert, Alice H. & Esculier, Fabien & Lienert, Judit, 2020. "Recommendations for online elicitation of swing weights from citizens in environmental decision-making," Operations Research Perspectives, Elsevier, vol. 7(C).
    2. Kevin Marsh & Kerrie-Anne Ho & Rachel Lo & Nancy Zaour & Aneesh Thomas George & Nigel S. Cook, 2021. "Assessing Patient Preferences in Rare Diseases: Direct Preference Elicitation in the Rare Chronic Kidney Disease, Immunoglobulin A Nephropathy," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 14(6), pages 837-847, November.
    3. Roy Brouwer & Ivana Logar & Oleg Sheremet, 2017. "Choice Consistency and Preference Stability in Test-Retests of Discrete Choice Experiment and Open-Ended Willingness to Pay Elicitation Formats," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 68(3), pages 729-751, 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. Kuller, M. & Beutler, P. & Lienert, J., 2023. "Preference change in stakeholder group-decision processes in the public sector: Extent, causes and implications," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 308(3), pages 1268-1285.
    2. Howai, Niko & Balcombe, Kelvin & Robinson, Elizabeth J.Z., 2025. "Mangroves and economic development in Tobago: Incorporating payment horizons, choice certainty and ex-post interviews in discrete choice experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 236(C).
    3. Roy Brouwer & Solomon Tarfasa, 2020. "Testing hypothetical bias in a framed field experiment," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 68(3), pages 343-357, September.
    4. H. Holly Wang & Yizhou Hua & Christine Wilson, 2025. "Do college students demand lower tuition for online learning? Empirical evidence from choice experiments during COVID-19," Education Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 33(2), pages 293-310, March.
    5. Animashaun, Jubril & Awogbemi, Kofoworola A. & Karim, Ramota O. & Emediegwu, Lotanna E., 2023. "Strategic Bias in Willingness to Pay Studies for Traditional Food Products: Anchoring Evidence on Repeated Experiments," 2023 Seventh AAAE/60th AEASA Conference, September 18-21, 2023, Durban, South Africa 365975, African Association of Agricultural Economists (AAAE).
    6. Logar, Ivana & Brouwer, Roy & Campbell, Danny, 2020. "Does attribute order influence attribute-information processing in discrete choice experiments?," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(C).
    7. Sondoss Elsawah & Elena Bakhanova & Raimo P. Hämäläinen & Alexey Voinov, 2023. "A Competency Framework for Participatory Modeling," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 32(3), pages 569-601, June.
    8. Huang, River & Corrente, Salvatore & Siskos, Eleftherios & Burgherr, Peter, 2026. "The Multi-Level Cards method: Weights elicitation, consistency checking and restoration for hierarchical criteria," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 138(C).
    9. Faccioli, Michela & Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Glenk, Klaus & Martin-Ortega, Julia, 2020. "Environmental attitudes and place identity as determinants of preferences for ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 174(C).
    10. Matthew Collins & Seraphim Dempsey & John Curtis, 2018. "Householder Preferences for the Design of an Energy Efficiency Retrofit Subsidy in Ireland," The Economic and Social Review, Economic and Social Studies, vol. 49(2), pages 145-172.
    11. Vieira, José Geraldo Vidal & Montibeller, Gilberto, 2026. "A survey-based priority elicitation protocol for community-based resource allocation decisions," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 328(3), pages 925-937.
    12. Ladenburg, Jacob & Skotte, Maria, 2022. "Heterogeneity in willingness to pay for the location of offshore wind power development: An application of the willingness to pay space model," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 241(C).
    13. Michela Faccioli & Mikołaj Czajkowski & Klaus Glenk & Julia Martin-Ortega, 2018. "Environmental attitudes and place identity as simultaneous determinants of preferences for environmental goods," Working Papers 2018-08, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    14. Aubert, Alice H. & Schmid, Sara & Lienert, Judit, 2024. "Can online interfaces enhance learning for public decision-making? Eliciting citizens’ preferences for multicriteria decision analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 314(2), pages 760-775.
    15. Mohammed Al-Mahish & Tarifa Almulhim & Maryam Alali, 2023. "Purchasing decisions on date palm fruits: A quantitative analysis of the Khalas cultivar," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 18(8), pages 1-16, August.
    16. Aubert, Alice H. & Lienert, Judit, 2024. "Operational Research for, with, and by citizens: An overview," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 316(3), pages 800-814.
    17. Luis C. Dias & Pedro Marques & Rita Garcia & Fernanda Santo & Rita Tentúgal & Tiago Natal-da-Luz & Álvaro Sousa & José Paulo Sousa & Fausto Freire, 2025. "Using qualitative information elicited from a panel to obtain robust conclusions: a protocol and an application to improve integrated pest management systems," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 353(1), pages 3-24, October.
    18. Hynes, Stephen & Armstrong, Claire W. & Xuan, Bui Bich & Ankamah-Yeboah, Isaac & Simpson, Katherine & Tinch, Robert & Ressurreição, Adriana, 2021. "Have environmental preferences and willingness to pay remained stable before and during the global Covid-19 shock?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 189(C).
    19. Boxebeld, Sander, 2024. "Ordering effects in discrete choice experiments: A systematic literature review across domains," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 51(C).
    20. Casati, Mirta & Soregaroli, Claudio & Rommel, Jens & Luzzani, Gloria & Stranieri, Stefanella, 2023. "Please keep ordering! A natural field experiment assessing a carbon label introduction," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).

    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:pone00:0309666. 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.