Cargando…
Using a Discrete-Choice Experiment in a Decision Aid to Nudge Patients Towards Value-Concordant Treatment Choices in Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Proof-of-Concept Study
PURPOSE: To evaluate, in a proof-of-concept study, a decision aid that incorporates hypothetical choices in the form of a discrete-choice experiment (DCE), to help patients with early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) understand their values and nudge them towards a value-centric decision between methotrexa...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Dove
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7244245/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32546977 http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/PPA.S221897 |
_version_ | 1783537541842993152 |
---|---|
author | Hazlewood, Glen S Marshall, Deborah A Barber, Claire E H Li, Linda C Barnabe, Cheryl Bykerk, Vivian Tugwell, Peter Hull, Pauline M Bansback, Nick |
author_facet | Hazlewood, Glen S Marshall, Deborah A Barber, Claire E H Li, Linda C Barnabe, Cheryl Bykerk, Vivian Tugwell, Peter Hull, Pauline M Bansback, Nick |
author_sort | Hazlewood, Glen S |
collection | PubMed |
description | PURPOSE: To evaluate, in a proof-of-concept study, a decision aid that incorporates hypothetical choices in the form of a discrete-choice experiment (DCE), to help patients with early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) understand their values and nudge them towards a value-centric decision between methotrexate and triple therapy (a combination of methotrexate, sulphasalazine and hydroxychloroquine). PATIENTS AND METHODS: In the decision aid, patients completed a series of 6 DCE choice tasks. Based on the patient’s pattern of responses, we calculated his/her probability of choosing each treatment, using data from a prior DCE. Following pilot testing, we conducted a cross-sectional study to determine the agreement between the predicted and final stated preference, as a measure of value concordance. Secondary outcomes including time to completion and usability were also evaluated. RESULTS: Pilot testing was completed with 10 patients and adjustments were made. We then recruited 29 patients to complete the survey: median age 57, 55% female. The patients were all taking treatment and had well-controlled disease. The predicted treatment agreed with the final treatment chosen by the patient 21/29 times (72%), similar to the expected agreement from the mean of the predicted probabilities (68%). Triple therapy was the predicted treatment 24/29 times (83%) and chosen 20/29 (69%) times. Half of the patients (51%) agreed that completing the choice questions helped them to understand their preferences (38% neutral, 10% disagreed). The tool took an average of 15 minutes to complete, and median usability scores were 55 (system usability scale) indicating “OK” usability. CONCLUSION: Using a DCE as a value-clarification task within a decision aid is feasible, with promising potential to help nudge patients towards a value-centric decision. Usability testing suggests further modifications are needed prior to implementation, perhaps by having the DCE exercises as an “add-on” to a simpler decision aid. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7244245 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | Dove |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-72442452020-06-15 Using a Discrete-Choice Experiment in a Decision Aid to Nudge Patients Towards Value-Concordant Treatment Choices in Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Proof-of-Concept Study Hazlewood, Glen S Marshall, Deborah A Barber, Claire E H Li, Linda C Barnabe, Cheryl Bykerk, Vivian Tugwell, Peter Hull, Pauline M Bansback, Nick Patient Prefer Adherence Original Research PURPOSE: To evaluate, in a proof-of-concept study, a decision aid that incorporates hypothetical choices in the form of a discrete-choice experiment (DCE), to help patients with early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) understand their values and nudge them towards a value-centric decision between methotrexate and triple therapy (a combination of methotrexate, sulphasalazine and hydroxychloroquine). PATIENTS AND METHODS: In the decision aid, patients completed a series of 6 DCE choice tasks. Based on the patient’s pattern of responses, we calculated his/her probability of choosing each treatment, using data from a prior DCE. Following pilot testing, we conducted a cross-sectional study to determine the agreement between the predicted and final stated preference, as a measure of value concordance. Secondary outcomes including time to completion and usability were also evaluated. RESULTS: Pilot testing was completed with 10 patients and adjustments were made. We then recruited 29 patients to complete the survey: median age 57, 55% female. The patients were all taking treatment and had well-controlled disease. The predicted treatment agreed with the final treatment chosen by the patient 21/29 times (72%), similar to the expected agreement from the mean of the predicted probabilities (68%). Triple therapy was the predicted treatment 24/29 times (83%) and chosen 20/29 (69%) times. Half of the patients (51%) agreed that completing the choice questions helped them to understand their preferences (38% neutral, 10% disagreed). The tool took an average of 15 minutes to complete, and median usability scores were 55 (system usability scale) indicating “OK” usability. CONCLUSION: Using a DCE as a value-clarification task within a decision aid is feasible, with promising potential to help nudge patients towards a value-centric decision. Usability testing suggests further modifications are needed prior to implementation, perhaps by having the DCE exercises as an “add-on” to a simpler decision aid. Dove 2020-05-18 /pmc/articles/PMC7244245/ /pubmed/32546977 http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/PPA.S221897 Text en © 2020 Hazlewood et al. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/). By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms (https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php). |
spellingShingle | Original Research Hazlewood, Glen S Marshall, Deborah A Barber, Claire E H Li, Linda C Barnabe, Cheryl Bykerk, Vivian Tugwell, Peter Hull, Pauline M Bansback, Nick Using a Discrete-Choice Experiment in a Decision Aid to Nudge Patients Towards Value-Concordant Treatment Choices in Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Proof-of-Concept Study |
title | Using a Discrete-Choice Experiment in a Decision Aid to Nudge Patients Towards Value-Concordant Treatment Choices in Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Proof-of-Concept Study |
title_full | Using a Discrete-Choice Experiment in a Decision Aid to Nudge Patients Towards Value-Concordant Treatment Choices in Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Proof-of-Concept Study |
title_fullStr | Using a Discrete-Choice Experiment in a Decision Aid to Nudge Patients Towards Value-Concordant Treatment Choices in Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Proof-of-Concept Study |
title_full_unstemmed | Using a Discrete-Choice Experiment in a Decision Aid to Nudge Patients Towards Value-Concordant Treatment Choices in Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Proof-of-Concept Study |
title_short | Using a Discrete-Choice Experiment in a Decision Aid to Nudge Patients Towards Value-Concordant Treatment Choices in Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Proof-of-Concept Study |
title_sort | using a discrete-choice experiment in a decision aid to nudge patients towards value-concordant treatment choices in rheumatoid arthritis: a proof-of-concept study |
topic | Original Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7244245/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32546977 http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/PPA.S221897 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT hazlewoodglens usingadiscretechoiceexperimentinadecisionaidtonudgepatientstowardsvalueconcordanttreatmentchoicesinrheumatoidarthritisaproofofconceptstudy AT marshalldeboraha usingadiscretechoiceexperimentinadecisionaidtonudgepatientstowardsvalueconcordanttreatmentchoicesinrheumatoidarthritisaproofofconceptstudy AT barberclaireeh usingadiscretechoiceexperimentinadecisionaidtonudgepatientstowardsvalueconcordanttreatmentchoicesinrheumatoidarthritisaproofofconceptstudy AT lilindac usingadiscretechoiceexperimentinadecisionaidtonudgepatientstowardsvalueconcordanttreatmentchoicesinrheumatoidarthritisaproofofconceptstudy AT barnabecheryl usingadiscretechoiceexperimentinadecisionaidtonudgepatientstowardsvalueconcordanttreatmentchoicesinrheumatoidarthritisaproofofconceptstudy AT bykerkvivian usingadiscretechoiceexperimentinadecisionaidtonudgepatientstowardsvalueconcordanttreatmentchoicesinrheumatoidarthritisaproofofconceptstudy AT tugwellpeter usingadiscretechoiceexperimentinadecisionaidtonudgepatientstowardsvalueconcordanttreatmentchoicesinrheumatoidarthritisaproofofconceptstudy AT hullpaulinem usingadiscretechoiceexperimentinadecisionaidtonudgepatientstowardsvalueconcordanttreatmentchoicesinrheumatoidarthritisaproofofconceptstudy AT bansbacknick usingadiscretechoiceexperimentinadecisionaidtonudgepatientstowardsvalueconcordanttreatmentchoicesinrheumatoidarthritisaproofofconceptstudy |