Can the General Public Be a Proxy for an "At-Risk" Group in a Patient Preference Study? A Disease Prevention Example in Rheumatoid Arthritis.

IF 3.1 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Medical Decision Making Pub Date : 2024-02-01 Epub Date: 2024-01-19 DOI:10.1177/0272989X231218265
R L DiSantostefano, G Simons, M Englbrecht, Jennifer H Humphreys, Ian N Bruce, K Schölin Bywall, C Radawski, K Raza, M Falahee, J Veldwijk
{"title":"Can the General Public Be a Proxy for an \"At-Risk\" Group in a Patient Preference Study? A Disease Prevention Example in Rheumatoid Arthritis.","authors":"R L DiSantostefano, G Simons, M Englbrecht, Jennifer H Humphreys, Ian N Bruce, K Schölin Bywall, C Radawski, K Raza, M Falahee, J Veldwijk","doi":"10.1177/0272989X231218265","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>When selecting samples for patient preference studies, it may be difficult or impractical to recruit participants who are eligible for a particular treatment decision. However, a general public sample may not be an appropriate proxy.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study compares preferences for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) preventive treatments between members of the general public and first-degree relatives (FDRs) of confirmed RA patients to assess whether a sample of the general public can be used as a proxy for FDRs.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Participants were asked to imagine they were experiencing arthralgia and had screening tests indicating a 60% chance of developing RA within 2 yrs. Using a discrete choice experiment, participants were offered a series of choices between no treatment and 2 unlabeled hypothetical treatments to reduce the risk of RA. To assess data quality, time to complete survey sections and comprehension questions were assessed. A random parameter logit model was used to obtain attribute-level estimates, which were used to calculate relative importance, maximum acceptable risk (MAR), and market shares of hypothetical preventive treatments.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The FDR sample (<i>n</i> = 298) spent more time completing the survey and performed better on comprehension questions compared with the general public sample (<i>n</i> = 982). The relative importance ranking was similar between the general public and FDR participant samples; however, other relative preference measures involving weights including MARs and market share differed between groups, with FDRs having numerically higher MARs.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In the context of RA prevention, the general public (average risk) may be a reasonable proxy for a more at-risk sample (FDRs) for overall relative importance ranking but not weights. The rationale for a proxy sample should be clearly justified.</p><p><strong>Highlights: </strong>Participants from the general public were compared to first-degree relatives on their preferences for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) preventive treatments using a discrete choice experiment.Preferences were similar between groups in terms of the most important and least important attributes of preventive treatments, with effectiveness being the most important attribute. However, relative weights differed.Attention to the survey and predicted market shares of hypothetical RA preventive treatments differed between the general public and first-degree relatives.The general public may be a reasonable proxy for an at-risk group for patient preferences ranks but not weights in the disease prevention context; however, care should be taken in sample selection for patient preference studies when choosing nonpatients.</p>","PeriodicalId":49839,"journal":{"name":"Medical Decision Making","volume":" ","pages":"189-202"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10865770/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical Decision Making","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X231218265","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/19 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: When selecting samples for patient preference studies, it may be difficult or impractical to recruit participants who are eligible for a particular treatment decision. However, a general public sample may not be an appropriate proxy.

Objective: This study compares preferences for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) preventive treatments between members of the general public and first-degree relatives (FDRs) of confirmed RA patients to assess whether a sample of the general public can be used as a proxy for FDRs.

Methods: Participants were asked to imagine they were experiencing arthralgia and had screening tests indicating a 60% chance of developing RA within 2 yrs. Using a discrete choice experiment, participants were offered a series of choices between no treatment and 2 unlabeled hypothetical treatments to reduce the risk of RA. To assess data quality, time to complete survey sections and comprehension questions were assessed. A random parameter logit model was used to obtain attribute-level estimates, which were used to calculate relative importance, maximum acceptable risk (MAR), and market shares of hypothetical preventive treatments.

Results: The FDR sample (n = 298) spent more time completing the survey and performed better on comprehension questions compared with the general public sample (n = 982). The relative importance ranking was similar between the general public and FDR participant samples; however, other relative preference measures involving weights including MARs and market share differed between groups, with FDRs having numerically higher MARs.

Conclusion: In the context of RA prevention, the general public (average risk) may be a reasonable proxy for a more at-risk sample (FDRs) for overall relative importance ranking but not weights. The rationale for a proxy sample should be clearly justified.

Highlights: Participants from the general public were compared to first-degree relatives on their preferences for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) preventive treatments using a discrete choice experiment.Preferences were similar between groups in terms of the most important and least important attributes of preventive treatments, with effectiveness being the most important attribute. However, relative weights differed.Attention to the survey and predicted market shares of hypothetical RA preventive treatments differed between the general public and first-degree relatives.The general public may be a reasonable proxy for an at-risk group for patient preferences ranks but not weights in the disease prevention context; however, care should be taken in sample selection for patient preference studies when choosing nonpatients.

在患者偏好研究中,公众能否成为 "高危 "群体的代理?以类风湿关节炎的疾病预防为例。
背景:在为患者偏好研究选择样本时,招募符合特定治疗决定条件的参与者可能比较困难或不切实际。然而,普通公众样本可能并不是一个合适的代表:本研究比较了普通公众和确诊类风湿性关节炎(RA)患者的一级亲属(FDRs)对类风湿性关节炎(RA)预防性治疗的偏好,以评估普通公众样本是否可用作一级亲属的替代样本:方法:要求参与者想象自己正在经历关节痛,并且筛查结果表明在两年内患 RA 的几率为 60%。通过离散选择实验,参与者可以在不进行治疗和两种无标签的假设治疗之间做出一系列选择,以降低患 RA 的风险。为评估数据质量,对完成调查部分的时间和理解问题进行了评估。采用随机参数 logit 模型获得属性级估计值,并以此计算假设预防性治疗的相对重要性、最大可接受风险 (MAR) 和市场份额:与普通公众样本(n = 982)相比,FDR 样本(n = 298)花费更多时间完成调查,在理解问题上表现更好。公众样本和 FDR 参与者样本的相对重要性排序相似;然而,涉及包括 MARs 和市场份额在内的权重的其他相对偏好度量在不同群体之间存在差异,FDR 的 MARs 在数字上更高:结论:在 RA 预防方面,一般公众(平均风险)可能是高风险样本(FDRs)在总体相对重要性排序(而非权重)方面的合理替代。应明确说明使用替代样本的理由:通过离散选择实验,比较了普通公众参与者和一级亲属对类风湿性关节炎(RA)预防治疗的偏好。在预防治疗最重要和最不重要的属性方面,不同群体的偏好相似,而有效性是最重要的属性。一般公众可能是患者偏好排名的高危群体的合理代表,但在疾病预防方面却不是权重的代表;不过,在选择非患者时,患者偏好研究的样本选择应谨慎。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Medical Decision Making
Medical Decision Making 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
5.60%
发文量
146
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Medical Decision Making offers rigorous and systematic approaches to decision making that are designed to improve the health and clinical care of individuals and to assist with health care policy development. Using the fundamentals of decision analysis and theory, economic evaluation, and evidence based quality assessment, Medical Decision Making presents both theoretical and practical statistical and modeling techniques and methods from a variety of disciplines.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信