IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v44y2024i2p189-202.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • R. L. DiSantostefano

    (Janssen Research & Development, Titusville, NJ, USA)

  • G. Simons

    (Rheumatology Research Group, Institute of Inflammation and Ageing, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK)

  • M. Englbrecht

    (freelance healthcare data scientist, Eckental, Germany
    Department of Internal Medicine and Institute for Clinical Immunology, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany)

  • Jennifer H. Humphreys

    (Centre for Epidemiology Versus Arthritis, Centre for Musculoskeletal Research, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
    Kellgren Centre for Rheumatology, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK)

  • Ian N. Bruce

    (Centre for Epidemiology Versus Arthritis, Centre for Musculoskeletal Research, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
    Kellgren Centre for Rheumatology, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK
    NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK)

  • K. Schölin Bywall

    (Mälardalen University, Vasteras, Västmanland, SE)

  • C. Radawski

    (Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN, USA)

  • K. Raza

    (Rheumatology Research Group, Institute of Inflammation and Ageing, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
    Department of Rheumatology, Sandwell and West Birmingham NHS Trust, Birmingham, UK
    MRC Versus Arthritis Centre for Musculoskeletal Ageing Research and Research into Inflammatory Arthritis Centre Versus Arthritis, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK)

  • M. Falahee

    (Rheumatology Research Group, Institute of Inflammation and Ageing, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK)

  • J. Veldwijk

    (School of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
    Erasmus Choice Modelling Centre, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
    Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands)

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.

Suggested Citation

  • R. L. DiSantostefano & G. Simons & M. Englbrecht & Jennifer H. Humphreys & Ian N. Bruce & K. Schölin Bywall & C. Radawski & K. Raza & M. Falahee & J. Veldwijk, 2024. "Can the General Public Be a Proxy for an “At-Risk†Group in a Patient Preference Study? A Disease Prevention Example in Rheumatoid Arthritis," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 44(2), pages 189-202, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:44:y:2024:i:2:p:189-202
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X231218265
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X231218265
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X231218265?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mickael Bech & Dorte Gyrd‐Hansen, 2005. "Effects coding in discrete choice experiments," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(10), pages 1079-1083, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Fischer, Barbara & Telser, Harry & Zweifel, Peter & von Wyl, Viktor & Beck, Konstantin & Weber, Andreas, 2023. "The value of a QALY towards the end of life and its determinants: Experimental evidence," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 326(C).
    2. Chaikaew, Pasicha & Hodges, Alan W. & Grunwald, Sabine, 2017. "Estimating the value of ecosystem services in a mixed-use watershed: A choice experiment approach," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 228-237.
    3. Rakotonarivo, O. Sarobidy & Bredahl Jacobsen, Jette & Poudyal, Mahesh & Rasoamanana, Alexandra & Hockley, Neal, 2018. "Estimating welfare impacts where property rights are contested: methodological and policy implications," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 71-83.
    4. David M. Meads & John L. O’Dwyer & Claire T. Hulme & Phani Chintakayala & Karen Vinall-Collier & Michael I. Bennett, 2017. "Patient Preferences for Pain Management in Advanced Cancer: Results from a Discrete Choice Experiment," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 10(5), pages 643-651, October.
    5. Jasper Grashuis & Theodoros Skevas & Michelle S. Segovia, 2020. "Grocery Shopping Preferences during the COVID-19 Pandemic," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(13), pages 1-10, July.
    6. Moser, Riccarda & Raffaelli, Roberta, 2011. "Exploiting cut-off information to incorporate context effect: a discrete choice experiment on small fruits in a Alpine region," 2011 International Congress, August 30-September 2, 2011, Zurich, Switzerland 114646, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    7. Baskaran, Ramesh & Cullen, Ross & Colombo, Sergio, 2010. "Testing different types of benefit transfer in valuation of ecosystem services: New Zealand winegrowing case studies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(5), pages 1010-1022, March.
    8. Goedele Van den Broeck & Kaat Van Hoyweghen & Miet Maertens, 2016. "Employment Conditions in the Senegalese Horticultural Export Industry: A Worker Perspective," Development Policy Review, Overseas Development Institute, vol. 34(2), pages 301-319, March.
    9. Fischer, Barbara & Telser, Harry & Zweifel, Peter, 2018. "End-of-life healthcare expenditure: Testing economic explanations using a discrete choice experiment," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 30-38.
    10. De Valck, Jeremy & Vlaeminck, Pieter & Liekens, Inge & Aertsens, Joris & Chen, Wendy & Vranken, Liesbet, 2012. "The sources of preference heterogeneity for nature restoration scenarios," Working Papers 146522, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Centre for Agricultural and Food Economics.
    11. Wakamatsu, Mihoko & Shin, Kong Joo & Wilson, Clevo & Managi, Shunsuke, 2018. "Exploring a Gap between Australia and Japan in the Economic Valuation of Whale Conservation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 397-407.
    12. Meemken, Eva-Marie & Veettil, Prakashan Chellattan & Qaim, Matin, 2017. "Toward Improving the Design of Sustainability Standards—A Gendered Analysis of Farmers’ Preferences," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 285-298.
    13. Jennifer Whitty & Paul Scuffham & Sharyn Rundle-Thielee, 2011. "Public and decision maker stated preferences for pharmaceutical subsidy decisions," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 9(2), pages 73-79, March.
    14. Resano, Helena & Sanjuán, Ana I. & Albisu, Luis M., 2012. "Consumers’ response to the EU Quality policy allowing for heterogeneous preferences," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(4), pages 355-365.
    15. Yu-Hui Chen & Kai-Han Qiu & Kang Ernest Liu & Chun-Yuan Chiang, 2020. "Are Consumers Willing to Pay a Premium for Pure Rice Noodles? A Study of Discrete Choice Experiments in Taiwan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(15), pages 1-18, July.
    16. Bougherara, Douadia & Lapierre, Margaux & Préget, Raphaële & Sauquet, Alexandre, 2021. "Do farmers prefer increasing, decreasing, or stable payments in Agri-environmental schemes?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 183(C).
    17. Vaiknoras, Kate & Norton, George & Alwang, Jeffrey, 2015. "Farmer preferences for attributes of conservation agriculture in Uganda," African Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, African Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 10(2), pages 1-16.
    18. Daly, Andrew & Dekker, Thijs & Hess, Stephane, 2016. "Dummy coding vs effects coding for categorical variables: Clarifications and extensions," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 21(C), pages 36-41.
    19. Meliyanni Johar & Denzil G. Fiebig & Marion Haas & Rosalie Viney, 2013. "Using repeated choice experiments to evaluate the impact of policy changes on cervical screening," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 45(14), pages 1845-1855, May.
    20. Linhai Wu & Hongsha Wang & Dian Zhu & Wuyang Hu & Shuxian Wang, 2016. "Chinese consumers’ willingness to pay for pork traceability information—the case of Wuxi," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 47(1), pages 71-79, January.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:44:y:2024:i:2:p:189-202. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.