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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Mühlbacher, Axel C., Sadler, Andrew, Lamprecht, Björn, Juhnke, Christin
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