Cargando…

Eliciting patient preferences, priorities and trade-offs for outcomes following kidney transplantation: a pilot best–worst scaling survey

OBJECTIVES: Eliciting preferences and trade-offs that patients may make to achieve important outcomes, can assist in developing patient-centred research and care. The pilot study aimed to test the feasibility of a case 2 best–worst scaling survey (BWS) to elicit recipient with kidney transplantation...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Howell, Martin, Wong, Germaine, Rose, John, Tong, Allison, Craig, Jonathan C, Howard, Kirsten
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4735165/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26810994
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2015-008163
_version_ 1782413029971853312
author Howell, Martin
Wong, Germaine
Rose, John
Tong, Allison
Craig, Jonathan C
Howard, Kirsten
author_facet Howell, Martin
Wong, Germaine
Rose, John
Tong, Allison
Craig, Jonathan C
Howard, Kirsten
author_sort Howell, Martin
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: Eliciting preferences and trade-offs that patients may make to achieve important outcomes, can assist in developing patient-centred research and care. The pilot study aimed to test the feasibility of a case 2 best–worst scaling survey (BWS) to elicit recipient with kidney transplantation preferences after transplantation. DESIGN: Preferences for graft survival and dying, cancer, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, infection and side effects (gastrointestinal, weight-gain and appearance) were assessed in recipients with transplantation using a BWS (20 scenarios of nine outcomes). Participants chose ‘best’ and ‘worst’ outcomes. Responses were analysed using a multinomial logit model. Selected participants were interviewed. OUTCOMES: Attribute coefficients and survey completion error rates. RESULTS: 81 recipients with transplantation were approached, and 39 (48%), mean age 50.5 years, completed the BWS. 4 (10%) surveys were invalid with major errors and of 35 remaining, 7 of 1400 (0.5%) choices were missing. –23 (59%) took >20 min to complete the survey. 1 was unable to finish, and 1 did not understand the survey. 2 (5%) found it very hard and 14 (35%) moderately hard. Most attribute coefficients were significant (p<0.05) and showed face validity. Graft survival was most important with normalised coefficients from 1 (95% CI 0.89 to 1.11) to 0.06 (95% CI −0.03 to 0.16) for 30 and 1 year duration, respectively. Attribute level coefficients decreased with increasing risk of adverse outcomes. Error rates of 20% and 2% were estimated for dominant attributes ‘100% risk of dying’ and ‘30 years graft survival’, respectively. 7 participants were interviewed regarding counterintuitive selection of ‘100% risk of dying’ as a ‘best’ outcome. Misunderstanding, not linking dying to graft survival and aversion to dialysis were reasons given. CONCLUSIONS: Recipients with transplant recipients successfully completed a complex case 2 BWS with attribute coefficients having face validity with respect to duration of graft survival and risk of adverse outcomes. Areas for refinement to reduce complexity in design have been identified.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4735165
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-47351652016-02-09 Eliciting patient preferences, priorities and trade-offs for outcomes following kidney transplantation: a pilot best–worst scaling survey Howell, Martin Wong, Germaine Rose, John Tong, Allison Craig, Jonathan C Howard, Kirsten BMJ Open Patient-Centred Medicine OBJECTIVES: Eliciting preferences and trade-offs that patients may make to achieve important outcomes, can assist in developing patient-centred research and care. The pilot study aimed to test the feasibility of a case 2 best–worst scaling survey (BWS) to elicit recipient with kidney transplantation preferences after transplantation. DESIGN: Preferences for graft survival and dying, cancer, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, infection and side effects (gastrointestinal, weight-gain and appearance) were assessed in recipients with transplantation using a BWS (20 scenarios of nine outcomes). Participants chose ‘best’ and ‘worst’ outcomes. Responses were analysed using a multinomial logit model. Selected participants were interviewed. OUTCOMES: Attribute coefficients and survey completion error rates. RESULTS: 81 recipients with transplantation were approached, and 39 (48%), mean age 50.5 years, completed the BWS. 4 (10%) surveys were invalid with major errors and of 35 remaining, 7 of 1400 (0.5%) choices were missing. –23 (59%) took >20 min to complete the survey. 1 was unable to finish, and 1 did not understand the survey. 2 (5%) found it very hard and 14 (35%) moderately hard. Most attribute coefficients were significant (p<0.05) and showed face validity. Graft survival was most important with normalised coefficients from 1 (95% CI 0.89 to 1.11) to 0.06 (95% CI −0.03 to 0.16) for 30 and 1 year duration, respectively. Attribute level coefficients decreased with increasing risk of adverse outcomes. Error rates of 20% and 2% were estimated for dominant attributes ‘100% risk of dying’ and ‘30 years graft survival’, respectively. 7 participants were interviewed regarding counterintuitive selection of ‘100% risk of dying’ as a ‘best’ outcome. Misunderstanding, not linking dying to graft survival and aversion to dialysis were reasons given. CONCLUSIONS: Recipients with transplant recipients successfully completed a complex case 2 BWS with attribute coefficients having face validity with respect to duration of graft survival and risk of adverse outcomes. Areas for refinement to reduce complexity in design have been identified. BMJ Publishing Group 2016-01-25 /pmc/articles/PMC4735165/ /pubmed/26810994 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2015-008163 Text en Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/ This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
spellingShingle Patient-Centred Medicine
Howell, Martin
Wong, Germaine
Rose, John
Tong, Allison
Craig, Jonathan C
Howard, Kirsten
Eliciting patient preferences, priorities and trade-offs for outcomes following kidney transplantation: a pilot best–worst scaling survey
title Eliciting patient preferences, priorities and trade-offs for outcomes following kidney transplantation: a pilot best–worst scaling survey
title_full Eliciting patient preferences, priorities and trade-offs for outcomes following kidney transplantation: a pilot best–worst scaling survey
title_fullStr Eliciting patient preferences, priorities and trade-offs for outcomes following kidney transplantation: a pilot best–worst scaling survey
title_full_unstemmed Eliciting patient preferences, priorities and trade-offs for outcomes following kidney transplantation: a pilot best–worst scaling survey
title_short Eliciting patient preferences, priorities and trade-offs for outcomes following kidney transplantation: a pilot best–worst scaling survey
title_sort eliciting patient preferences, priorities and trade-offs for outcomes following kidney transplantation: a pilot best–worst scaling survey
topic Patient-Centred Medicine
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4735165/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26810994
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2015-008163
work_keys_str_mv AT howellmartin elicitingpatientpreferencesprioritiesandtradeoffsforoutcomesfollowingkidneytransplantationapilotbestworstscalingsurvey
AT wonggermaine elicitingpatientpreferencesprioritiesandtradeoffsforoutcomesfollowingkidneytransplantationapilotbestworstscalingsurvey
AT rosejohn elicitingpatientpreferencesprioritiesandtradeoffsforoutcomesfollowingkidneytransplantationapilotbestworstscalingsurvey
AT tongallison elicitingpatientpreferencesprioritiesandtradeoffsforoutcomesfollowingkidneytransplantationapilotbestworstscalingsurvey
AT craigjonathanc elicitingpatientpreferencesprioritiesandtradeoffsforoutcomesfollowingkidneytransplantationapilotbestworstscalingsurvey
AT howardkirsten elicitingpatientpreferencesprioritiesandtradeoffsforoutcomesfollowingkidneytransplantationapilotbestworstscalingsurvey