Patient preferences for conservative treatment of shoulder pain: a discrete choice experiment.

IF 2.4 4区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Annelotte H C Versloot, Jorien Veldwijk, Ramon P G Ottenheijm, Marloes de Graaf, Daniëlle A van der Windt, Bart W Koes, Jos Runhaar, Dieuwke Schiphof
{"title":"Patient preferences for conservative treatment of shoulder pain: a discrete choice experiment.","authors":"Annelotte H C Versloot, Jorien Veldwijk, Ramon P G Ottenheijm, Marloes de Graaf, Daniëlle A van der Windt, Bart W Koes, Jos Runhaar, Dieuwke Schiphof","doi":"10.1093/fampra/cmae050","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Shoulder pain is common amongst adults, but little is known about patients' preferences.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>The aim of this study was to determine patients' preferences for treatment options offered for shoulder pain in primary care.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A discrete choice experiment was used to investigate these preferences. Adults with shoulder pain were asked to make 12 choices between two treatment options, or to opt-out. The attributes of the 12 treatment options were presented as varying in: treatment effectiveness (50%, 70%, or 90%), risk of relapse (10%, 20%, or 30%), time to pain reduction (2 or 6 weeks), prevention of relapse (yes/no), requiring injection (yes/no), and including physiotherapy (none, 6, or 12 sessions). A conditional logit model with latent class analysis was used for the analysis and a class assignment model.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Three hundred and twelve participants completed the questionnaire with mean age of 52 ± 15.2 years. Latent class analysis revealed three groups. Group 1 preferred to opt-out, unless the attributes were highly favorable (90% effectiveness). Group 2 preferred treatment, but not an injection. Group 3 preferred to opt-out and did not opt for treatment. The likelihood of a participant belonging to one of these groups was 68.8%, 9.3%, and 21.9%, respectively. The class assignment was related to having previously received injection or physiotherapy, as they did not prefer that same treatment again.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study showed that most patients with shoulder pain prefer to opt-out, unless treatment attributes are highly favorable. Characteristics of influence on this decision was whether the patient had received an injection or physiotherapy before.</p>","PeriodicalId":12209,"journal":{"name":"Family practice","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11878378/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Family practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/fampra/cmae050","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Shoulder pain is common amongst adults, but little is known about patients' preferences.

Objective: The aim of this study was to determine patients' preferences for treatment options offered for shoulder pain in primary care.

Methods: A discrete choice experiment was used to investigate these preferences. Adults with shoulder pain were asked to make 12 choices between two treatment options, or to opt-out. The attributes of the 12 treatment options were presented as varying in: treatment effectiveness (50%, 70%, or 90%), risk of relapse (10%, 20%, or 30%), time to pain reduction (2 or 6 weeks), prevention of relapse (yes/no), requiring injection (yes/no), and including physiotherapy (none, 6, or 12 sessions). A conditional logit model with latent class analysis was used for the analysis and a class assignment model.

Results: Three hundred and twelve participants completed the questionnaire with mean age of 52 ± 15.2 years. Latent class analysis revealed three groups. Group 1 preferred to opt-out, unless the attributes were highly favorable (90% effectiveness). Group 2 preferred treatment, but not an injection. Group 3 preferred to opt-out and did not opt for treatment. The likelihood of a participant belonging to one of these groups was 68.8%, 9.3%, and 21.9%, respectively. The class assignment was related to having previously received injection or physiotherapy, as they did not prefer that same treatment again.

Conclusion: This study showed that most patients with shoulder pain prefer to opt-out, unless treatment attributes are highly favorable. Characteristics of influence on this decision was whether the patient had received an injection or physiotherapy before.

患者对肩痛保守治疗的偏好:离散选择实验。
背景:肩痛在成年人中很常见,但人们对患者的偏好却知之甚少:肩痛在成年人中很常见,但人们对患者的偏好知之甚少:本研究旨在确定患者对基层医疗机构提供的肩痛治疗方案的偏好:方法:采用离散选择实验来调查这些偏好。要求患有肩痛的成年人在两种治疗方案中做出 12 项选择,或者选择不接受治疗。12 种治疗方案的属性各不相同:治疗效果(50%、70% 或 90%)、复发风险(10%、20% 或 30%)、疼痛减轻时间(2 周或 6 周)、预防复发(是/否)、需要注射(是/否)以及包括物理治疗(无、6 或 12 次)。分析采用了带有潜类分析的条件对数模型和类别分配模型:312 名参与者填写了问卷,平均年龄(52 ± 15.2)岁。潜类分析显示出三个组别。第一组倾向于选择退出,除非属性非常有利(90% 有效)。第 2 组倾向于治疗,但不注射。第 3 组倾向于选择退出,不选择治疗。参与者属于其中一组的可能性分别为 68.8%、9.3% 和 21.9%。分班与之前接受过注射或理疗有关,因为他们不愿意再次接受同样的治疗:这项研究表明,大多数肩痛患者倾向于选择放弃治疗,除非治疗效果非常好。影响这一决定的特征是患者之前是否接受过注射或物理治疗。
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
Family practice
Family practice 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
9.10%
发文量
144
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Family Practice is an international journal aimed at practitioners, teachers, and researchers in the fields of family medicine, general practice, and primary care in both developed and developing countries. Family Practice offers its readership an international view of the problems and preoccupations in the field, while providing a medium of instruction and exploration. The journal''s range and content covers such areas as health care delivery, epidemiology, public health, and clinical case studies. The journal aims to be interdisciplinary and contributions from other disciplines of medicine and social science are always welcomed.
×
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