IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/patien/v15y2022i1d10.1007_s40271-021-00533-z.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Towards Personalising the Use of Biologics in Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Discrete Choice Experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Caroline M Vass

    (The University of Manchester)

  • Anne Barton

    (The University of Manchester
    Manchester University Foundation Trust)

  • Katherine Payne

    (The University of Manchester)

Abstract

Introduction There have been promising developments in technologies and associated algorithm-based prescribing (‘stratified approach’) to target biologics to sub-groups of people with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The acceptability of using an algorithm-guided approach in practice is likely to depend on various factors. Objective This study quantified preferences for an algorithm-guided approach to prescribing biologics (termed ‘biologic calculator’). Methods An online discrete choice experiment (DCE) was designed to elicit preferences from patients and the public for using a ‘biologic calculator’ compared with conventional prescribing. Treatment approaches were described by five attributes: delay to starting treatment; positive and negative predictive value (PPV/NPV); risk of infection; and cost saving to the UK national health service. Each survey contained six choice sets asking respondents to select their preferred option from two hypothetical biologic calculators or conventional prescribing. Background questions included sociodemographics, health status and healthcare experiences. DCE data were analysed using mixed logit models. Results Completed choice data were collected from 292 respondents (151 patients with RA and 142 members of the public). PPV, NPV and risk of infection were the most highly valued attributes to respondents deciding between prescribing strategies. Conclusion Respondents were generally receptive to personalised medicine in RA, but researchers developing personalised approaches should pay close attention to generating evidence on both the PPV and the NPV of their technologies.

Suggested Citation

  • Caroline M Vass & Anne Barton & Katherine Payne, 2022. "Towards Personalising the Use of Biologics in Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Discrete Choice Experiment," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 15(1), pages 109-119, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:patien:v:15:y:2022:i:1:d:10.1007_s40271-021-00533-z
    DOI: 10.1007/s40271-021-00533-z
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40271-021-00533-z
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40271-021-00533-z?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Esther Bekker-Grob & Bas Donkers & Marcel Jonker & Elly Stolk, 2015. "Sample Size Requirements for Discrete-Choice Experiments in Healthcare: a Practical Guide," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 8(5), pages 373-384, October.
    2. Bruno Fautrel & Ann E. Clarke & Francis Guillemin & Viviane Adam & Yvan St-Pierre & Tina Panaritis & Paul R. Fortin & Henri A. Menard & Cam Donaldson & John R. Penrod, 2007. "Costs of Rheumatoid Arthritis: New Estimates from the Human Capital Method and Comparison to the Willingness-to-Pay Method," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 27(2), pages 138-150, March.
    3. Stuart J. Wright & Caroline M. Vass & Gene Sim & Michael Burton & Denzil G. Fiebig & Katherine Payne, 2018. "Accounting for Scale Heterogeneity in Healthcare-Related Discrete Choice Experiments when Comparing Stated Preferences: A Systematic Review," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 11(5), pages 475-488, October.
    4. Aki Tsuchiya & Verity Watson, 2017. "Re‐Thinking ‘The Different Perspectives That can be Used When Eliciting Preferences in Health’," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(12), pages 103-107, December.
    5. Bloom, Gerald & Standing, Hilary & Lloyd, Robert, 2008. "Markets, information asymmetry and health care: Towards new social contracts," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 66(10), pages 2076-2087, 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. Buckell, John & Hess, Stephane, 2019. "Stubbing out hypothetical bias: improving tobacco market predictions by combining stated and revealed preference data," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 93-102.
    2. van Cranenburgh, Sander & Bliemer, Michiel C.J., 2019. "Information theoretic-based sampling of observations," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 31(C), pages 181-197.
    3. Mengna Luan & Wenjing Shi & Zhigang Tao & Hongjie Yuan, 2023. "When patients have better insurance coverage in China: Provider incentives, costs, and quality of care," Economics of Transition and Institutional Change, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(4), pages 1073-1106, October.
    4. Andrew McNee, 2012. "Illuminating the local: can non-formal institutions be complementary to health system development in Papua New Guinea?," Development Policy Centre Discussion Papers 1215, Development Policy Centre, Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University.
    5. Dimitrios Gouglas & Kendall Hoyt & Elizabeth Peacocke & Aristidis Kaloudis & Trygve Ottersen & John-Arne Røttingen, 2019. "Setting Strategic Objectives for the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations: An Exploratory Decision Analysis Process," Service Science, INFORMS, vol. 49(6), pages 430-446, November.
    6. Frimpong, Jemima A. & Helleringer, Stephane, 2020. "Financial Incentives for Downloading COVID–19 Digital Contact Tracing Apps," SocArXiv 9vp7x, Center for Open Science.
    7. John Buckell & Joachim Marti & Jody L. Sindelar, 2017. "Should Flavors be Banned in E-cigarettes? Evidence on Adult Smokers and Recent Quitters from a Discrete Choice Experiment," NBER Working Papers 23865, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    8. Sydenham, Rikke Vognbjerg & Jarbøl, Dorte Ejg & Hansen, Malene Plejdrup & Justesen, Ulrik Stenz & Watson, Verity & Pedersen, Line Bjørnskov, 2022. "Prescribing antibiotics: Factors driving decision-making in general practice. A discrete choice experiment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 305(C).
    9. Sriwastava, Ambuj & Reichert, Peter, 2023. "Reducing sample size requirements by extending discrete choice experiments to indifference elicitation," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 48(C).
    10. Danso, G. K. & Otoo, Miriam & Duy Linh, N. & Madurangi, Ganesha, "undated". "Households’ willingness-to-pay for fish product attributes and implications for market feasibility of wastewater-based aquaculture businesses in Hanoi, Vietnam," Papers published in Journals (Open Access) H048216, International Water Management Institute.
    11. Swait, J. & de Bekker-Grob, E.W., 2022. "A discrete choice model implementing gist-based categorization of alternatives, with applications to patient preferences for cancer screening and treatment," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 85(C).
    12. Koşar, Gizem & Ransom, Tyler & van der Klaauw, Wilbert, 2022. "Understanding migration aversion using elicited counterfactual choice probabilities," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 231(1), pages 123-147.
    13. Hansen, Lise Desireé & Kjær, Trine, 2019. "Disentangling public preferences for health gains at end-of-life: Further evidence of no support of an end-of-life premium," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 236(C), pages 1-1.
    14. Bloom, Gerald & Wolcott, Sara, 2013. "Building institutions for health and health systems in contexts of rapid change," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 216-222.
    15. Giuseppe Russo & Andrea Moretta Tartaglione & Ylenia Cavacece, 2019. "Empowering Patients to Co-Create a Sustainable Healthcare Value," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-20, March.
    16. Ozawa, Sachiko & Sripad, Pooja, 2013. "How do you measure trust in the health system? A systematic review of the literature," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 10-14.
    17. Leonardo Cei & Edi Defrancesco & Paola Gatto & Francesco Pagliacci, 2023. "Pay more for me, I’m from the mountains! The role of the EU Mountain Product term and other credence attributes in consumers’ valuation of lamb meat," Agricultural and Food Economics, Springer;Italian Society of Agricultural Economics (SIDEA), vol. 11(1), pages 1-21, December.
    18. Lee, Hye-Jae & Bae, Eun-Young, 2017. "Eliciting preferences for medical devices in South Korea: A discrete choice experiment," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 121(3), pages 243-249.
    19. Ozkan Tutuncu & Aslihan Cobaner & Osman Guzelgoz & Ayhan Cetin & Mihriban Malkoc & Salih Mollahaliloglu, 2014. "The effects of health transformation program on patient–healthcare personnel communication and interaction in Turkey," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 48(6), pages 3433-3446, November.
    20. Mennini, Francesco Saverio & Gitto, Lara, 2022. "Approaches to Estimating Indirect Costs in Healthcare: Motivations for Choice," MPRA Paper 112129, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    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:spr:patien:v:15:y:2022:i:1:d:10.1007_s40271-021-00533-z. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.