Pmu129 Performance of a Comprehension Question in Discrete-Choice Experiment Surveys (Dce)

Mansfield, Carol; Poulos, Christine; Boeri, Marco; Hauber, AB

doi:10.1016/j.jval.2019.09.1747

Cited by 4 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The DCE choice questions were complex. Although 68% to 77% of respondents answered each individual comprehension question correctly, similar to what was observed in other studies, 25 half the respondents failed to answer all comprehension questions correctly. We controlled for incorrect responses to all 3 comprehension questions in the analyses and did not find this indicator to have significant correlation with the binary outcome of choosing treatment over no treatment.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

Patient Preferences for Lung Cancer Interception Therapy

Janssen,

Smith,

Liu

et al. 2023

JAMA Netw Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ImportanceInterception therapy requires individuals to undergo treatment to prevent a future medical event, but little is known about preferences of individuals at high risk for lung cancer and whether they would be interested in this type of treatment.ObjectiveTo explore preferences of individuals at high risk for lung cancer for potential interception therapies to reduce this risk.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis survey study used a discrete-choice experiment and included hypothetical lung cancer interception treatments with 4 attributes: reduction in lung cancer risk over 3 years, injection site reaction severity, nonfatal serious infection, and death from serious infection. Respondents were assigned to a baseline lung cancer risk of 6%, 10%, or 16% over 3 years. The discrete-choice experiment was administered online (July 13 to September 6, 2022) to US respondents eligible for lung cancer screening according to US Preventive Services Task Force guidelines. Participants included adults aged 50 to 80 years with at least a 20 pack-year smoking history. Statistical analysis was performed from September to December 2022.Main Outcomes and MeasuresAttribute-level preference weights were estimated, and conditional relative attribute importance, maximum acceptable risks, and minimum acceptable benefits were calculated. Characteristics of respondents who always selected no treatment were also explored.ResultsOf the 803 survey respondents, 495 (61.6%) were female, 138 (17.2%) were African American or Black, 55 (6.8%) were Alaska Native, American Indian, or Native American, 44 (5.5%) were Asian or Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, 104 (13.0%) were Hispanic, Latin American, or Latinx, and 462 (57.5%) were White, Middle Eastern or North African, or a race or ethnicity not listed; and mean (SD) age was 63.0 (7.5) years. Most respondents were willing to accept interception therapy and viewed reduction in lung cancer risk as the most important attribute. Respondents would accept a greater than or equal to a 12.0 percentage point increase in risk of nonfatal serious infection if lung cancer risk was reduced by at least 20.0 percentage points; and a greater than or equal to 1.2 percentage point increase in risk of fatal serious infection if lung cancer risk was reduced by at least 30.0 percentage points. Respondents would require at least a 15.4 (95% CI, 10.6-20.2) percentage point decrease in lung cancer risk to accept a 12.0 percentage point increase in risk of nonfatal serious infection; and at least a 23.1 (95% CI, 16.4-29.8) percentage point decrease in lung cancer risk to accept a 1.2 percentage point increase in risk of death from serious infection. Respondents who were unwilling to accept interception therapy in any question (129 [16.1%]) were more likely to be older and to currently smoke with no prior cessation attempt, and less likely to have been vaccinated against COVID-19 or examined for skin cancer.Conclusions and RelevanceIn this survey study of individuals at high risk of lung cancer, most respondents were willing to consider interception therapy. These results suggest the importance of benefit-risk assessments for future lung cancer interception treatments.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

Patient Preferences for Lung Cancer Interception Therapy

Janssen,

Smith,

Liu

et al. 2023

JAMA Netw Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…To evaluate the validity of the study, validity checks were built into the survey to identify respondents whose responses appear to “fail” these validity checks based on expected norms. Validity checks included evaluation of a comprehension question similar to that of Mansfield et al ( 75 ), time to complete the survey, and choice consistency (the initial threshold question was repeated after the first threshold series). Dutch and French translations of the English survey were made by a certified translator and reviewed by a researcher (EvO), excluding QoL questions for which validated translations were used.…”

Section: Methods and Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Patient Preferences to Assess Value IN Gene Therapies: Protocol Development for the PAVING Study in Hemophilia

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: Gene therapies are innovative therapies that are increasingly being developed. However, health technology assessment (HTA) and payer decision making on these therapies is impeded by uncertainties, especially regarding long-term outcomes. Through measuring patient preferences regarding gene therapies, the importance of unique elements that go beyond health gain can be quantified and inform value assessments. We designed a study, namely the Patient preferences to Assess Value IN Gene therapies (PAVING) study, that can inform HTA and payers by investigating trade-offs that adult Belgian hemophilia A and B patients are willing to make when asked to choose between a standard of care and gene therapy.Methods and Analysis: An eight-step approach was taken to establish the protocol for this study: (1) stated preference method selection, (2) initial attributes identification, (3) stakeholder (HTA and payer) needs identification, (4) patient relevant attributes and information needs identification, (5) level identification and choice task construction, (6) educational tool design, (7) survey integration, and (8) piloting and pretesting. In the end, a threshold technique survey was designed using the attributes “Annual bleeding rate,” “Chance to stop prophylaxis,” “Time that side effects have been studied,” and “Quality of Life.”Ethics and Dissemination: The Medical Ethics Committee of UZ KU Leuven/Research approved the study. Results from the study will be presented to stakeholders and patients at conferences and in peer-reviewed journals. We hope that results from the PAVING study can inform decision makers on the acceptability of uncertainties and the value of gene therapies to patients.

show abstract

“…Entries were excluded from analysis if participants reported no or mild haemophilia, were under 18 years old, did not live in Belgium, completed less than 50% of the survey, or failed two or more validity checks. Validity checks consisted of a comprehension question similar to that of Mansfield et al., 28 time to complete the survey (< 10 min), and choice consistency. From identified doubles, the most complete or latest entry was included in analysis.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Patient preferences for gene therapy in haemophilia: Results from the PAVING threshold technique survey

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives:The aim of the Patient preferences to Assess Value IN Gene therapies (PAVING) study was to investigate trade-offs that adult Belgian people with haemophilia (PWH) A and B are willing to make when choosing between prophylactic factor replacement therapy (PFRT) and gene therapy. Methods:The threshold technique was used to quantify the minimum acceptable benefit (MAB) of a switch from PFRT to gene therapy in terms of 'Annual bleeding rate' (ABR), 'Chance to stop prophylaxis' (STOP), and 'Quality of life' (QOL). The design was supported by stakeholder involvement and included an educational tool on gene therapy. Threshold intervals were analysed using interval regression models in Stata 16.Results: A total of 117 PWH completed the survey. Mean thresholds were identified for all benefits, but substantial preference heterogeneity was observed; especially for the STOP thresholds, where the distribution of preferences was bimodal. Time spent on the educational tool and residence were found to impact MAB thresholds. The most accepted (88% of PWH) gene therapy profile investigated in this study comprised of zero bleeds per year (vs. six for PFRT), 90% chance to stop prophylaxis, no impact on QoL, and 10 years of follow-up on side effects (vs. 30 for PFRT). Conclusions:Results from this study proved the value of educating patients on novel treatments. Moreover, preference heterogeneity for novel treatments was confirmed in this study. In gene therapy decision-making, preference heterogeneity and the impact of patient education on acceptance should be considered.

show abstract

Pmu129 Performance of a Comprehension Question in Discrete-Choice Experiment Surveys (Dce)

Cited by 4 publications

References 0 publications

Patient Preferences for Lung Cancer Interception Therapy

Patient Preferences for Lung Cancer Interception Therapy

Patient Preferences to Assess Value IN Gene Therapies: Protocol Development for the PAVING Study in Hemophilia

Patient preferences for gene therapy in haemophilia: Results from the PAVING threshold technique survey

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About