IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v36y2016i4p490-502.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Does Introducing Imprecision around Probabilities for Benefit and Harm Influence the Way People Value Treatments?

Author

Listed:
  • Nick Bansback
  • Mark Harrison
  • Carlo Marra

Abstract

Background . Imprecision in estimates of benefits and harms around treatment choices is rarely described to patients. Variation in sampling error between treatment alternatives (e.g., treatments have similar average risks, but one treatment has a larger confidence interval) can result in patients failing to choose the option that is best for them. The aim of this study is to use a discrete choice experiment to describe how 2 methods for conveying imprecision in risk influence people’s treatment decisions. Methods . We randomized a representative sample of the Canadian general population to 1 of 3 surveys that sought choices between hypothetical treatments for rheumatoid arthritis based on different levels of 7 attributes: route and frequency of administration, chance of benefit, serious and minor side effects and life expectancy, and imprecision in benefit and side-effect estimates. The surveys differed in the way imprecision was described: 1) no imprecision, 2) quantitative description based on a range with a visual graphic, and 3) qualitative description simply describing the confidence in the evidence. Results . The analyzed data were from 2663 respondents. Results suggested that more people understood imprecision when it was described qualitatively (88%) versus quantitatively (68%). Respondents who appeared to understand imprecision descriptions placed high value on increased precision regarding the actual benefits and harms of treatment, equivalent to the value placed on the information about the probability of serious side effects. Both qualitative and quantitative methods led to small but significant increases in decision uncertainty for choosing any treatment. Limitations included some issues in defining understanding of imprecision and the use of an internet survey of panel members. Conclusions . These findings provide insight into how conveying imprecision information influences patient treatment choices.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:36:y:2016:i:4:p:490-502
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X15600708
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X15600708
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X15600708?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. David Revelt and Kenneth Train., 2000. "Customer-Specific Taste Parameters and Mixed Logit: Households' Choice of Electricity Supplier," Economics Working Papers E00-274, University of California at Berkeley.
    2. Gafni, Amiram & Charles, Cathy & Whelan, Tim, 1998. "The physician-patient encounter: The physician as a perfect agent for the patient versus the informed treatment decision-making model," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 47(3), pages 347-354, August.
    3. 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.
    4. Louviere,Jordan J. & Hensher,David A. & Swait,Joffre D. With contributions by-Name:Adamowicz,Wiktor, 2000. "Stated Choice Methods," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521788304.
    5. Charles, Cathy & Gafni, Amiram & Whelan, Tim, 1999. "Decision-making in the physician-patient encounter: revisiting the shared treatment decision-making model," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 49(5), pages 651-661, September.
    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. Carissa Bonner & Lyndal J. Trevena & Wolfgang Gaissmaier & Paul K. J. Han & Yasmina Okan & Elissa Ozanne & Ellen Peters & Daniëlle Timmermans & Brian J. Zikmund-Fisher, 2021. "Current Best Practice for Presenting Probabilities in Patient Decision Aids: Fundamental Principles," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 41(7), pages 821-833, October.
    2. Tammy C. Hoffmann & Mina Bakhit & Marie-Anne Durand & Lilisbeth Perestelo-Pérez & Catherine Saunders & Juan P. Brito, 2021. "Basing Information on Comprehensive, Critically Appraised, and Up-to-Date Syntheses of the Scientific Evidence: An Update from the International Patient Decision Aid Standards," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 41(7), pages 755-767, October.

    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. 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.
    2. Coast, Joanna, 2018. "A history that goes hand in hand: Reflections on the development of health economics and the role played by Social Science & Medicine, 1967–2017," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 196(C), pages 227-232.
    3. Schuster, Monica & Vranken, Liesbet & Maertens, Miet, 2017. "You Can(’t) Always Get the Job You Want: Stated versus Revealed Employment Preferences in the Peruvian Agro-industry," Working Papers 254076, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Centre for Agricultural and Food Economics.
    4. Angela Fagerlin & Karen R. Sepucha & Mick P. Couper & Carrie A. Levin & Eleanor Singer & Brian J. Zikmund-Fisher, 2010. "Patients’ Knowledge about 9 Common Health Conditions: The DECISIONS Survey," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 30(5_suppl), pages 35-52, September.
    5. Hoyos, David, 2010. "The state of the art of environmental valuation with discrete choice experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(8), pages 1595-1603, June.
    6. Riise, Julie & Hole, Arne Risa & Gyrd-Hansen, Dorte & Skåtun, Diane, 2016. "GPs' implicit prioritization through clinical choices – evidence from three national health services," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 169-183.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. Mihaela Cornelia Prejmerean & Simona Vasilache, 2008. "A LSCM approach to the Romanian pharmaceuticals market," The AMFITEATRU ECONOMIC journal, Academy of Economic Studies - Bucharest, Romania, vol. 10(24), pages 166-176, June.
    10. 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.
    11. Roe, Brian E. & Interis, Matthew G. & Howard, Gregory E., 2018. "Utilizing Subjective Beliefs in Stated Preference Models: Issues and Solutions," 2018 Annual Meeting, August 5-7, Washington, D.C. 274017, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    12. Lang, Ghislaine & Farsi, Mehdi & Lanz, Bruno & Weber, Sylvain, 2021. "Energy efficiency and heating technology investments: Manipulating financial information in a discrete choice experiment," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(C).
    13. Martin Achtnicht, 2012. "German car buyers’ willingness to pay to reduce CO 2 emissions," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 113(3), pages 679-697, August.
    14. Hoyos Ramos, David, 2010. "Using discrete choice experiments for environmental valuation," BILTOKI 1134-8984, Universidad del País Vasco - Departamento de Economía Aplicada III (Econometría y Estadística).
    15. Hangjian Wu & Emmanouil Mentzakis & Marije Schaafsma, 2022. "Exploring Different Assumptions about Outcome-Related Risk Perceptions in Discrete Choice Experiments," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 81(3), pages 531-572, March.
    16. Gregory Howard & Brian E. Roe & Matthew G. Interis & Jay Martin, 2020. "Addressing Attribute Value Substitution in Discrete Choice Experiments to Avoid Unintended Consequences," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 77(4), pages 813-838, December.
    17. Singh, Jagdip & Cuttler, Leona & Silvers, J. B., 2004. "Toward understanding consumers' role in medical decisions for emerging treatments: Issues, framework and hypotheses," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 57(9), pages 1054-1065, September.
    18. Achtnicht, Martin, 2011. "Do environmental benefits matter? Evidence from a choice experiment among house owners in Germany," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(11), pages 2191-2200, September.
    19. Nora Moumjid & Amiram Gafni & Alain Brémond & Marie-Odile Carrère, 2007. "Shared Decision Making in the Medical Encounter: Are We All Talking about the Same Thing?," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 27(5), pages 539-546, September.

    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:sae:medema:v:36:y:2016:i:4:p:490-502. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.