IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v42y2022i6p832-836.html

Noninferiority Margin Size and Acceptance of Trial Results: Contingent Valuation Survey of Clinician Preferences for Noninferior Mortality

Author

Listed:
  • Sandra Pong

    (Department of Pharmacy, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, ON, Canada)

  • Robert A. Fowler

    (Interdepartmental Division of Critical Care Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto ON, Canada
    Tory Trauma Program, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada
    Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada)

  • Nicholas Mitsakakis

    (Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada
    Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada)

  • Srinivas Murthy

    (Department of Pediatrics, Division of Critical Care, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Research Institute, BC Children’s Hospital, Vancouver, BC, Canada)

  • Jeffrey M. Pernica

    (Division of Infectious Diseases, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada)

  • Elaine Gilfoyle

    (Department of Critical Care Medicine, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, ON, Canada)

  • Asha Bowen

    (Wesfarmers Centre for Vaccines and Infectious Diseases, Telethon Kids Institute, University of Western Australia Perth Children’s Hospital, Nedlands, WA, Australia
    Department of Infectious Diseases, Perth Children’s Hospital, Nedlands, WA, Australia)

  • Patricia Fontela

    (Department of Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Occupational Health, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada
    Department of Pediatrics, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada)

  • Winnie Seto

    (Department of Pharmacy, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, ON, Canada
    Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
    Leslie Dan Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada)

  • Michelle Science

    (Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Paediatric Medicine, The Hospital for Children, Toronto, ON, Canada)

  • James S. Hutchison

    (Department of Critical Care Medicine, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, ON, Canada)

  • Philippe Jouvet

    (Pediatric Intensive Care Unit, Sainte-Justine Hospital University Center, Montreal, QC, Canada
    Department of Pediatrics, Université de Montréal, Montreal, QC, Canada)

  • Asgar Rishu

    (Critical Care Research Unit, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada)

  • Nick Daneman

    (Division of Infectious Diseases, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada)

Abstract

Objectives We used modified contingent valuation methodology to determine how noninferiority margin sizes influence clinicians’ willingness to accept clinical trial results that compare mortality in critically ill children. Methods We surveyed pediatric infectious diseases and critical care clinicians in Canada, Australia, and New Zealand and randomized respondents to review 1 of 9 mock abstracts describing a noninferiority trial of bacteremic critically ill children assigned to 7 or 14 d of antibiotics. Each scenario showed higher mortality in the 7-d group but met noninferiority criterion. We explored how noninferiority margins and baseline mortality rates influenced respondent acceptance of results. Results There were 106 survey respondents: 65 (61%) critical care clinicians, 28 (26%) infectious diseases physicians, and 13 (12%) pharmacists. When noninferiority margins were 5% and 10%, 73% (24/33) and 79% (27/33) respondents would accept shorter treatment, compared with 44% (17/39) when the margin was 20% ( P = 0.003). Logistic regression adjusted for baseline mortality showed 5% and 10% noninferiority margins were more likely to be associated with acceptance of shorter treatment compared with 20% margins (odds ratio [OR] 3.5, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.3–9.6, P = 0.013; OR 5.1, 95% CI: 1.8–14.6, P = 0.002). Baseline mortality was not a significant predictor of acceptance of shorter treatment. Conclusions Clinicians are more likely to accept shorter treatment when noninferiority margins are ≤10%. However, nearly half of respondents who reviewed abstracts with 20% margins were still willing to accept shorter treatment. This is a novel application of contingent valuation methodology to elicit acceptance of research results among end users of the medical literature. Highlights Clinicians are more likely to accept shorter treatment durations based on noninferior mortality results when the noninferiority margin is 5% or 10% than if the margin is 20%. However, nearly half of clinicians would still accept shorter-duration treatment as noninferior with margins of 20%. Baseline mortality does not independently predict acceptance of shorter-duration treatment. Contingent valuation is a novel approach to elicit the acceptance of research design parameters from the perspective of endusers of the medical literature.

Suggested Citation

  • Sandra Pong & Robert A. Fowler & Nicholas Mitsakakis & Srinivas Murthy & Jeffrey M. Pernica & Elaine Gilfoyle & Asha Bowen & Patricia Fontela & Winnie Seto & Michelle Science & James S. Hutchison & Ph, 2022. "Noninferiority Margin Size and Acceptance of Trial Results: Contingent Valuation Survey of Clinician Preferences for Noninferior Mortality," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 42(6), pages 832-836, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:42:y:2022:i:6:p:832-836
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X221099493
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X221099493
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X221099493?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. Klose, Thomas, 1999. "The contingent valuation method in health care," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(2), pages 97-123, May.
    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. Rashmita Basu, 2013. "Willingness-to-pay to prevent Alzheimer’s disease: a contingent valuation approach," International Journal of Health Economics and Management, Springer, vol. 13(3), pages 233-245, December.
    2. Alene Sze Jing Yong & Yi Heng Lim & Mark Wing Loong Cheong & Ednin Hamzah & Siew Li Teoh, 2022. "Willingness-to-pay for cancer treatment and outcome: a systematic review," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 23(6), pages 1037-1057, August.
    3. Ndola Prata & Suzanne Bell & Karen Weidert & Amanuel Gessessew, 2013. "Potential for Cost Recovery: Women’s Willingness to Pay for Injectable Contraceptives in Tigray, Ethiopia," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(5), pages 1-11, May.
    4. Marc Fleurbaey & Stéphane Luchini & Christophe Muller & Erik Schokkaert, 2013. "Equivalent Income And Fair Evaluation Of Health Care," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(6), pages 711-729, June.
    5. Abay Asfaw & Joachim Braun, 2005. "Innovations in Health Care Financing: New Evidence on the Prospect of Community Health Insurance Schemes in the Rural Areas of Ethiopia," International Journal of Health Economics and Management, Springer, vol. 5(3), pages 241-253, September.
    6. Alan Shiell & Lisa Gold, 2003. "If the price is right: vagueness and values clarification in contingent valuation," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(11), pages 909-919, November.
    7. Watson, Verity & Ryan, Mandy, 2007. "Exploring preference anomalies in double bounded contingent valuation," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 463-482, May.
    8. Smith, Richard D. & Richardson, Jeff, 2005. "Can we estimate the `social' value of a QALY?: Four core issues to resolve," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(1), pages 77-84, September.
    9. Jennifer Whitty, 2012. "Insensitivity to Scope in Contingent Valuation Studies," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 10(6), pages 361-363, November.
    10. Peggy C.J.M. van Spreuwel & Katarina Jerković-Ćosić & Cor van Loveren & Geert J.M.G. van der Heijden, 2021. "Parents’ Willingness to Invest in Primary Oral Health Prevention for Their Preschool Children," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(21), pages 1-11, October.
    11. Obinna Onwujekwe & Julia Fox-Rushby & Kara Hanson, 2008. "Construct Validity of the Bidding Game, Binary with Follow-up, and a Novel Structured Haggling Question Format in Determining Willingness to Pay for Insecticide-Treated Mosquito Nets," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 28(1), pages 90-101, January.
    12. Tambor, Marzena & Pavlova, Milena & Rechel, Bernd & Golinowska, Stanisława & Sowada, Christoph & Groot, Wim, 2014. "Willingness to pay for publicly financed health care services in Central and Eastern Europe: Evidence from six countries based on a contingent valuation method," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 193-201.
    13. Xiao-Hua Ying & Teh-Wei Hu & Jane Ren & Wen Chen & Ke Xu & Jin-Hui Huang, 2007. "Demand for private health insurance in Chinese urban areas," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(10), pages 1041-1050.
    14. Powdthavee, Nattavudh & van den Berg, Bernard, 2011. "Putting different price tags on the same health condition: Re-evaluating the well-being valuation approach," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(5), pages 1032-1043.
    15. Lars Hein & Pete Roberts & Lucia Gonzalez, 2016. "Valuing a Statistical Life Year in Relation to Clean Air," Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management (JEAPM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 18(04), pages 1-24, December.
    16. Laia Soler & Nicolas Borzykowski, 2021. "The costs of celiac disease: a contingent valuation in Switzerland," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 22(9), pages 1487-1505, December.
    17. Hugh Gravelle & Dave Smith, 2001. "Discounting for health effects in cost–benefit and cost‐effectiveness analysis," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 10(7), pages 587-599, October.
    18. Carola Braun & Katrin Rehdanz & Ulrich Schmidt, 2016. "Validity of Willingness to Pay Measures under Preference Uncertainty," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(4), pages 1-17, April.
    19. Fan Yang & Brenda Gannon & Andrew Weightman, 2018. "Public’s Willingness to Pay Towards a Medical Device for Detecting Foot Ulceration in People with Diabetes," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 16(4), pages 559-567, August.
    20. Mandy Ryan & Mabelle Amaya‐Amaya, 2005. "‘Threats’ to and hopes for estimating benefits," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(6), pages 609-619, June.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:sae:medema:v:42:y:2022:i:6:p:832-836. 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.