IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/patien/v16y2023i5d10.1007_s40271-023-00622-1.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Decision Making About Disease-Modifying Treatments for Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis: Stated Preferences and Real-World Choices

Author

Listed:
  • Edward J. D. Webb

    (Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds)

  • David Meads

    (Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds)

  • Ieva Eskytė

    (University of Leeds)

  • Helen L. Ford

    (Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust)

  • Hilary L. Bekker

    (Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds
    Central Denmark Region)

  • Jeremy Chataway

    (University College London
    University College London)

  • George Pepper

    (Shift.ms)

  • Joachim Marti

    (University of Lausanne)

  • Yasmina Okan

    (University of Leeds
    Pompeu Fabra University)

  • Sue H. Pavitt

    (University of Leeds)

  • Klaus Schmierer

    (Queen Mary University of London
    The Royal London Hospital, Barts Health NHS Trust)

  • Ana Manzano

    (University of Leeds)

Abstract

Background People with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis can benefit from disease-modifying treatments (DMTs). Several DMTs are available that vary in their efficacy, side-effect profile and mode of administration. Objective We aimed to measure the preferences of people with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis for DMTs using a discrete choice experiment and to assess which stated preference attributes correlate with the attributes of the DMTs they take in the real world. Methods Discrete choice experiment attributes were developed from literature reviews, interviews and focus groups. In a discrete choice experiment, participants were shown two hypothetical DMTs, then chose whether they preferred one of the DMTs or no treatment. A mixed logit model was estimated from responses and individual-level estimates of participants’ preferences conditional on their discrete choice experiment choices calculated. Logit models were estimated with stated preferences predicting current real-world on-treatment status, DMT mode of administration and current DMT. Results A stated intrinsic preference for taking a DMT was correlated with currently taking a DMT, and stated preferences for mode of administration were correlated with the modes of administration of the DMTs participants were currently taking. Stated preferences for treatment effectiveness and adverse effects were not correlated with real-world behaviour. Conclusions There was variation in which discrete choice experiment attributes correlated with participants’ real-world DMT choices. This may indicate patient preferences for treatment efficacy/risk are not adequately taken account of in prescribing. Treatment guidelines must ensure they take into consideration patients’ preferences and improve communication around treatment efficacy/risk.

Suggested Citation

  • Edward J. D. Webb & David Meads & Ieva Eskytė & Helen L. Ford & Hilary L. Bekker & Jeremy Chataway & George Pepper & Joachim Marti & Yasmina Okan & Sue H. Pavitt & Klaus Schmierer & Ana Manzano, 2023. "Decision Making About Disease-Modifying Treatments for Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis: Stated Preferences and Real-World Choices," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 16(5), pages 457-471, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:patien:v:16:y:2023:i:5:d:10.1007_s40271-023-00622-1
    DOI: 10.1007/s40271-023-00622-1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40271-023-00622-1
    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/s40271-023-00622-1?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. Mandy Ryan & Verity Watson, 2009. "Comparing welfare estimates from payment card contingent valuation and discrete choice experiments," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(4), pages 389-401, April.
    2. 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.
    3. Trine Kjær & Mickael Bech & Dorte Gyrd‐Hansen & Kristian Hart‐Hansen, 2006. "Ordering effect and price sensitivity in discrete choice experiments: need we worry?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(11), pages 1217-1228, November.
    4. Lyndal J. Trevena & Carissa Bonner & Yasmina Okan & Ellen Peters & Wolfgang Gaissmaier & Paul K. J. Han & Elissa Ozanne & Danielle Timmermans & Brian J. Zikmund-Fisher, 2021. "Current Challenges When Using Numbers in Patient Decision Aids: Advanced Concepts," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 41(7), pages 834-847, October.
    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. Alessandro Mengoni & Chiara Seghieri & Sabina Nuti, 2013. "The application of discrete choice experiments in health economics: a systematic review of the literature," Working Papers 201301, Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna of Pisa, Istituto di Management.
    2. Nicolas Krucien & Amiram Gafni & Nathalie Pelletier‐Fleury, 2015. "Empirical Testing of the External Validity of a Discrete Choice Experiment to Determine Preferred Treatment Option: The Case of Sleep Apnea," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 24(8), pages 951-965, August.
    3. Dawn Stacey & Robert J. Volk, 2021. "The International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) Collaboration: Evidence Update 2.0," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 41(7), pages 729-733, October.
    4. Holly O. Witteman & Ruth Ndjaboue & Gratianne Vaisson & Selma Chipenda Dansokho & Bob Arnold & John F. P. Bridges & Sandrine Comeau & Angela Fagerlin & Teresa Gavaruzzi & Melina Marcoux & Arwen Pieter, 2021. "Clarifying Values: An Updated and Expanded Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 41(7), pages 801-820, October.
    5. Robert J. Johnston & Kevin J. Boyle & Wiktor (Vic) Adamowicz & Jeff Bennett & Roy Brouwer & Trudy Ann Cameron & W. Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Riccardo Scarpa & Roger Tourangeau & Ch, 2017. "Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(2), pages 319-405.
    6. 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.
    7. Joachim Marti, 2012. "Assessing preferences for improved smoking cessation medications: a discrete choice experiment," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 13(5), pages 533-548, October.
    8. Nguyen, Thanh Cong & Le, Hoa Thu & Nguyen, Hang Dieu & Ngo, Mai Thanh & Nguyen, Hong Quang, 2021. "Examining ordering effects and strategic behaviour in a discrete choice experiment," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 394-413.
    9. Aki Tsuchiya & Nick Bansback & Arne Risa Hole & Brendan Mulhern, 2019. "Manipulating the 5 Dimensions of the EuroQol Instrument: The Effects on Self-Reporting Actual Health and Valuing Hypothetical Health States," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 39(4), pages 380-392, May.
    10. Moser, Riccarda & Raffaelli, Roberta, 2011. "Exploiting cut-off information to incorporate context effect: a discrete choice experiment on small fruits in a Alpine region," 2011 International Congress, August 30-September 2, 2011, Zurich, Switzerland 114646, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    11. Marta Trapero-Bertran & Beatriz Rodríguez-Martín & Julio López-Bastida, 2019. "What attributes should be included in a discrete choice experiment related to health technologies? A systematic literature review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(7), pages 1-15, July.
    12. Roy Brouwer & Fumbi Job & Bianca Kroon & Richard Johnston, 2015. "Comparing Willingness to Pay for Improved Drinking-Water Quality Using Stated Preference Methods in Rural and Urban Kenya," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 13(1), pages 81-94, February.
    13. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Rose, John M. & Oppewal, Harmen & Lancsar, Emily, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part I. Macro-scale analysis of literature and integrative synthesis of empirical evidence from applied economics, experimental psychology and neuroimag," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    14. Sandorf, Erlend Dancke & Crastes dit Sourd, Romain & Mahieu, Pierre-Alexandre, 2018. "The effect of attribute-alternative matrix displays on preferences and processing strategies," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 29(C), pages 113-132.
    15. Krucien, Nicolas & Ryan, Mandy & Hermens, Frouke, 2017. "Visual attention in multi-attributes choices: What can eye-tracking tell us?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 135(C), pages 251-267.
    16. Jorien Veldwijk & Stella Maria Marceta & Joffre Dan Swait & Stefan Adriaan Lipman & Esther Wilhelmina Bekker-Grob, 2023. "Taking the Shortcut: Simplifying Heuristics in Discrete Choice Experiments," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 16(4), pages 301-315, July.
    17. Elizabeth Kinter & Thomas Prior & Christopher Carswell & John Bridges, 2012. "A Comparison of Two Experimental Design Approaches in Applying Conjoint Analysis in Patient-Centered Outcomes Research," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 5(4), pages 279-294, December.
    18. Jesús Martín-Fernández & Gloria Ariza-Cardiel & Luz Mª Peña-Longobardo & Elena Polentinos-Castro & Juan Oliva-Moreno & Ana Isabel Gil-Lacruz & Héctor Medina-Palomino & Isabel del Cura-González, 2017. "“Gaining or losing”: The importance of the perspective in primary care health services valuation," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(12), pages 1-14, December.
    19. Pedersen, Line Bjørnskov & Hess, Stephane & Kjær, Trine, 2016. "Asymmetric information and user orientation in general practice: Exploring the agency relationship in a best–worst scaling study," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 115-130.
    20. Nasrin Tayyari Dehbarez & Morten Raun Mørkbak & Dorte Gyrd-Hansen & Niels Uldbjerg & Rikke Søgaard, 2018. "Women’s Preferences for Birthing Hospital in Denmark: A Discrete Choice Experiment," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 11(6), pages 613-624, December.

    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:16:y:2023:i:5:d:10.1007_s40271-023-00622-1. 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.