Can an ‘informed’ general population sample be comparable to a patient sample? A case study of preferences for chemotherapy induced peripheral neuropathy

Background

In health care preference studies, a general population sample may be the only viable option. However, they lack the understanding of treatment/care of patient samples. This study investigated the impact of providing extra information on general population comprehension of discrete choice experiment (DCE) choice sets. Preferences were compared between an informed and ‘naïve’ general population sample and a patient sample. This was investigated in the context of eliciting preferences for features of a chemotherapy induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) assessment tool.

Methods

A general population sample was randomised to two arms. Arm 1 (N = 167) received written information and some pictures about CIPN and Arm 2 (N = 168) received extra information in the form of a short video and moving images. These responses were compared to a patient sample (N = 117) that received the same information as Arm 1. All respondents completed 8 choice sets each.

Results

Arms 1 and 2 of the general population sample had no preference differences, although respondents in Arm 2 had an easier time identifying differences between assessment options than those in Arm 1. The patient and general population sample had overlapping preferences for some attribute parameters, while differences were more in terms of strength of preference rather than differences in preferences.

Conclusions

Extra information can improve general population understanding of DCE choice sets. However, it was not found to bring general population preferences closer to the patient sample. This has implications when considering willingness to pay by patients versus general population.