IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v38y2018i5p593-600.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Physician-Specific Maximum Acceptable Risk in Personalized Medicine: Implications for Medical Decision Making

Author

Listed:
  • Marco Boeri

    (Health Preference Assessment, RTI Health Solutions, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA)

  • Alan J. McMichael

    (UKCRC Centre of Excellence for Public Health, Queen’s University Belfast, Royal Victoria Hospital, Belfast, Antrim, UK)

  • Joseph P. M. Kane

    (Institute of Neuroscience, Newcastle University, Campus of Ageing and Vitality, Newcastle Upon Tyne, England, UK)

  • Francis A. O’Neill

    (UKCRC Centre of Excellence for Public Health, Queen’s University Belfast, Royal Victoria Hospital, Belfast, Antrim, UK)

  • Frank Kee

    (UKCRC Centre of Excellence for Public Health, Queen’s University Belfast, Royal Victoria Hospital, Belfast, Antrim, UK)

Abstract

Background. In discrete-choice experiments (DCEs), respondents are presented with a series of scenarios and asked to select their preferred choice. In clinical decision making, DCEs allow one to calculate the maximum acceptable risk (MAR) that a respondent is willing to accept for a one-unit increase in treatment efficacy. Most published studies report the average MAR for the whole sample, without conveying any information about heterogeneity. For a sample of psychiatrists prescribing drugs for a series of hypothetical patients with schizophrenia, this article demonstrates how heterogeneity accounted for in the DCE modeling can be incorporated in the derivation of the MAR. Methods. Psychiatrists were given information about a group of patients’ responses to treatment on the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) and the weight gain associated with the treatment observed in a series of 26 vignettes. We estimated a random parameters logit (RPL) model with treatment choice as the dependent variable. Results. Results from the RPL were used to compute the MAR for the overall sample. This was found to be equal to 4%, implying that, overall, psychiatrists were willing to accept a 4% increase in the risk of an adverse event to obtain a one-unit improvement of symptoms – measured on the PANSS. Heterogeneity was then incorporated in the MAR calculation, finding that MARs ranged between 0.5 and 9.5 across the sample of psychiatrists. Limitations. We provided psychiatrists with hypothetical scenarios, and their MAR may change when making decisions for actual patients. Conclusions. This analysis aimed to show how it is possible to calculate physician-specific MARs and to discuss how MAR heterogeneity could have implications for medical practice.

Suggested Citation

  • Marco Boeri & Alan J. McMichael & Joseph P. M. Kane & Francis A. O’Neill & Frank Kee, 2018. "Physician-Specific Maximum Acceptable Risk in Personalized Medicine: Implications for Medical Decision Making," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 38(5), pages 593-600, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:38:y:2018:i:5:p:593-600
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X18758279
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X18758279
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X18758279?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. Joel Huber and Kenneth Train., 2000. "On the Similarity of Classical and Bayesian Estimates of Individual Mean Partworths," Economics Working Papers E00-289, University of California at Berkeley.
    2. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555, January.
    3. Ferrini, Silvia & Scarpa, Riccardo, 2007. "Designs with a priori information for nonmarket valuation with choice experiments: A Monte Carlo study," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 53(3), pages 342-363, May.
    4. Caroline Vass & Dan Rigby & Katherine Payne, 2017. "The Role of Qualitative Research Methods in Discrete Choice Experiments," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 37(3), pages 298-313, April.
    5. Riccardo Scarpa & Danny Campbell & W. George Hutchinson, 2007. "Benefit Estimates for Landscape Improvements: Sequential Bayesian Design and Respondents’ Rationality in a Choice Experiment," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 83(4), pages 617-634.
    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. Jürgen Meyerhoff & Ulf Liebe, 2009. "Status Quo Effect in Choice Experiments: Empirical Evidence on Attitudes and Choice Task Complexity," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 85(3), pages 515-528.
    2. Tagliafierro, C. & Boeri, M. & Longo, A. & Hutchinson, W.G., 2016. "Stated preference methods and landscape ecology indicators: An example of transdisciplinarity in landscape economic valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 11-22.
    3. Ndebele, Tom & Johnston, Robert J. & Newburn, David, 2020. "Transaction Costs and Household Adoption of Stormwater Best Management Practices," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304338, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    4. 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.
    5. Rungie, Cam & Scarpa, Riccardo & Thiene, Mara, 2014. "The influence of individuals in forming collective household preferences for water quality," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 68(1), pages 161-174.
    6. Richard Yao & Riccardo Scarpa & John Rose & James Turner, 2015. "Experimental Design Criteria and Their Behavioural Efficiency: An Evaluation in the Field," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 62(3), pages 433-455, November.
    7. Carol Mansfield & Jessie Sutphin & Marco Boeri, 2020. "Assessing the impact of excluded attributes on choice in a discrete choice experiment using a follow‐up question," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 29(10), pages 1307-1315, October.
    8. Grisolía, José M. & Longo, Alberto & Hutchinson, George & Kee, Frank, 2015. "Applying Health Locus of Control and Latent Class Modelling to food and physical activity choices affecting CVD risk," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 1-10.
    9. Campbell, Danny, 2007. "Combining mixed logit models and random effects models to identify the determinants of willingness to pay for rural landscape improvements," 81st Annual Conference, April 2-4, 2007, Reading University, UK 7975, Agricultural Economics Society.
    10. Bethany Cooper & John Rose & Lin Crase, 2012. "Does anybody like water restrictions? Some observations in Australian urban communities," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 56(1), pages 61-81, January.
    11. Scarpa, Riccardo & Rose, John M., 2008. "Design efficiency for non-market valuation with choice modelling: how to measure it, what to report and why," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 52(3), pages 1-30.
    12. John Gibson & Riccardo Scarpa & Halahingano Rohorua, 2013. "Respiratory Health of Pacific Island Immigrants and Preferences for Indoor Air Quality Determinants in New Zealand," Working Papers in Economics 13/09, University of Waikato.
    13. Robert J. Johnston & Tom Ndebele & David A. Newburn, 2023. "Modeling transaction costs in household adoption of landscape conservation practices," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 105(1), pages 341-367, January.
    14. Grisolía, José M. & Longo, Alberto & Boeri, Marco & Hutchinson, George & Kee, Frank, 2013. "Trading off dietary choices, physical exercise and cardiovascular disease risks," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 130-138.
    15. Boeri, Marco & Scarpa, Riccardo & Chorus, Caspar G., 2014. "Stated choices and benefit estimates in the context of traffic calming schemes: Utility maximization, regret minimization, or both?," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 121-135.
    16. 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).
    17. Rotaris Lucia & Danielis Romeo, 2011. "Willingness to Pay for Fair Trade Coffee: A Conjoint Analysis Experiment with Italian Consumers," Journal of Agricultural & Food Industrial Organization, De Gruyter, vol. 9(1), pages 1-22, June.
    18. Noriko Irie & Naoko Kawahara, 2023. "Social Impact Scoping Using Statistical Methods: The Case of a Novel Design of Abandoned Farmland Policy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(4), pages 1-18, February.
    19. Beharry-Borg, Nesha & Scarpa, Riccardo, 2010. "Valuing quality changes in Caribbean coastal waters for heterogeneous beach visitors," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(5), pages 1124-1139, March.
    20. Tomas Badura & Silvia Ferrini & Michael Burton & Amy Binner & Ian J. Bateman, 2020. "Using Individualised Choice Maps to Capture the Spatial Dimensions of Value Within Choice Experiments," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 75(2), pages 297-322, February.

    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:38:y:2018:i:5:p:593-600. 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.