Cargando…
Patient preferences in the treatment of hemophilia A: A latent class analysis
OBJECTIVE: To examine subgroup-specific treatment preferences and characteristics of patients with hemophilia A. METHODS: Best–Worst Scaling (BWS) Case 3 (four attributes: application type; bleeding frequencies/year; inhibitor development risk; thromboembolic events of hemophilia A treatment risk) c...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Public Library of Science
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8382185/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34424920 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256521 |
_version_ | 1783741502304813056 |
---|---|
author | Mühlbacher, Axel C. Sadler, Andrew Lamprecht, Björn Juhnke, Christin |
author_facet | Mühlbacher, Axel C. Sadler, Andrew Lamprecht, Björn Juhnke, Christin |
author_sort | Mühlbacher, Axel C. |
collection | PubMed |
description | OBJECTIVE: To examine subgroup-specific treatment preferences and characteristics of patients with hemophilia A. METHODS: Best–Worst Scaling (BWS) Case 3 (four attributes: application type; bleeding frequencies/year; inhibitor development risk; thromboembolic events of hemophilia A treatment risk) conducted via online survey. Respondents chose the best and the worst option of three treatment alternatives. Data were analyzed via latent class model (LCM), allowing capture of heterogeneity in the sample. Respondents were grouped into a predefined number of classes with distinct preferences. RESULTS: The final dataset contained 57 respondents. LCM analysis segmented the sample into two classes with heterogeneous preferences. Preferences within each were homogeneous. For class 1, the most decisive factor was bleeding frequency/year. Respondents seemed to focus mainly on this in their choice decisions. With some distance, inhibitor development was the second most important. The remaining attributes were of far less importance for respondents in this class. Respondents in class 2 based their choice decisions primarily on inhibitor development, also followed, by some distance, the second most important attribute bleeding frequency/year. There was statistical significance (P < 0.05) between the number of annual bleedings and the probability of class membership. CONCLUSIONS: The LCM analysis addresses heterogeneity in respondents’ choice decisions, which helps to tailor treatment alternatives to individual needs. Study results support clinical and allocative decision-making and improve the quality of interpretation of clinical data. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8382185 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | Public Library of Science |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-83821852021-08-24 Patient preferences in the treatment of hemophilia A: A latent class analysis Mühlbacher, Axel C. Sadler, Andrew Lamprecht, Björn Juhnke, Christin PLoS One Research Article OBJECTIVE: To examine subgroup-specific treatment preferences and characteristics of patients with hemophilia A. METHODS: Best–Worst Scaling (BWS) Case 3 (four attributes: application type; bleeding frequencies/year; inhibitor development risk; thromboembolic events of hemophilia A treatment risk) conducted via online survey. Respondents chose the best and the worst option of three treatment alternatives. Data were analyzed via latent class model (LCM), allowing capture of heterogeneity in the sample. Respondents were grouped into a predefined number of classes with distinct preferences. RESULTS: The final dataset contained 57 respondents. LCM analysis segmented the sample into two classes with heterogeneous preferences. Preferences within each were homogeneous. For class 1, the most decisive factor was bleeding frequency/year. Respondents seemed to focus mainly on this in their choice decisions. With some distance, inhibitor development was the second most important. The remaining attributes were of far less importance for respondents in this class. Respondents in class 2 based their choice decisions primarily on inhibitor development, also followed, by some distance, the second most important attribute bleeding frequency/year. There was statistical significance (P < 0.05) between the number of annual bleedings and the probability of class membership. CONCLUSIONS: The LCM analysis addresses heterogeneity in respondents’ choice decisions, which helps to tailor treatment alternatives to individual needs. Study results support clinical and allocative decision-making and improve the quality of interpretation of clinical data. Public Library of Science 2021-08-23 /pmc/articles/PMC8382185/ /pubmed/34424920 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256521 Text en © 2021 Mühlbacher et al https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Mühlbacher, Axel C. Sadler, Andrew Lamprecht, Björn Juhnke, Christin Patient preferences in the treatment of hemophilia A: A latent class analysis |
title | Patient preferences in the treatment of hemophilia A: A latent class analysis |
title_full | Patient preferences in the treatment of hemophilia A: A latent class analysis |
title_fullStr | Patient preferences in the treatment of hemophilia A: A latent class analysis |
title_full_unstemmed | Patient preferences in the treatment of hemophilia A: A latent class analysis |
title_short | Patient preferences in the treatment of hemophilia A: A latent class analysis |
title_sort | patient preferences in the treatment of hemophilia a: a latent class analysis |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8382185/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34424920 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256521 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT muhlbacheraxelc patientpreferencesinthetreatmentofhemophiliaaalatentclassanalysis AT sadlerandrew patientpreferencesinthetreatmentofhemophiliaaalatentclassanalysis AT lamprechtbjorn patientpreferencesinthetreatmentofhemophiliaaalatentclassanalysis AT juhnkechristin patientpreferencesinthetreatmentofhemophiliaaalatentclassanalysis |