Adaptive Conjoint Analysis as individual preference assessment tool: feasibility through the internet and reliability of preferences.
ABSTRACT Patient values are not routinely assessed in clinical practice. Adaptive Conjoint Analysis (ACA) is increasingly applied in studies assessing treatment preferences, and could provide a means to routinely assess individual patients' treatment preferences.
An ACA-questionnaire was administered three times (7-10 days apart) to 98 long-term rectal cancer survivors either on a portable computer or through internet, to assess whether (a) responses differ according to administration mode, (b) relative importances of rectal cancer treatment outcomes (survival, local control, incontinence, sexual problems) consolidate over time, (c) ACA-outcomes are sufficiently reliable (ICC) for use in individual decision-making. We also evaluated patients' acceptance of ACA.
Mode did not affect ACA-completion or evaluation. Importance scores did not consolidate over time. ICCs were poor for sexual problems and fair for the other outcomes, and were at least equal or higher from first to second retest. Most participants valued completing the ACA-questionnaire and learning their results.
Values did not show consolidation over time. ACA-derived preferences should not determine which treatment patients should choose.
Findings extend ACA-validation studies to the health care setting and suggest that ACA-questionnaires might be appreciated as adjuncts to treatment decision-making in newly diagnosed patients.
- [show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Perception of health risk can affect medical decisions and health behavior change. Yet the concept of risk is a difficult one for the public to grasp. Whether perceptions of risk affect decisions and behaviors often relies on how messages of risk magnitudes (i.e., likelihood) are conveyed. Based on expert opinion, this article offers, when possible, best practices for conveying magnitude of health risks using numeric, verbal, and visual formats. This expert opinion is based on existing empirical evidence, review of papers and books, and consultations with experts in risk communication. This article also discusses formats to use pertaining to unique risk communication challenges (e.g., conveying small-probability events, interactions). Several recommendations are suggested for enhancing precision in perception of risk by presenting risk magnitudes numerically and visually. Overall, there are little data to suggest best practices for verbal communication of risk magnitudes. Across the 3 formats, few overall recommendations could be suggested because of 1) lack of consistency in testing formats using the same outcomes in the domain of interest, 2) lack of critical tests using randomized controlled studies pitting formats against one another, and 3) lack of theoretical progress detailing and testing mechanisms why one format should be more efficacious in a specific context to affect risk magnitudes than others. Areas of future research are provided that it is hoped will help illuminate future best practices.Medical Decision Making 01/2007; 27(5):696-713. · 2.89 Impact Factor
- [show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The long-term results of randomized trials have demonstrated equivalent survival rates for mastectomy and breast-conserving therapy for the treatment of early stage breast cancer. Consequently, the choice of treatment should be based on a patient's preferences. To evaluate the impact of a decision aid regarding the different surgical treatment options on patient decision making. A cluster randomized trial for which general surgeons in the communities of central-west, and eastern Ontario, Canada, were randomly assigned to use the decision aid or not in the surgical consultation. Patients received the decision aid or not based on the surgeon seen. Twenty surgeons participated in the study. Of the 208 eligible women with newly diagnosed clinical stage I or II breast cancer seen by study surgeons, 201 agreed to be evaluated: 94 were assigned to the decision board and 107 to usual practice. Patients were recruited from November 1999 to April 2002. The decision board is a decision aid designed to help physicians inform their patients about different treatment options and to enable patients to express a preference for treatment. Patient knowledge about the surgical treatment of breast cancer; decisional conflict; satisfaction with decision making; and the treatment decision following the consultation. Patients in the decision board group had higher knowledge scores about their treatment options (66.9 vs 58.7; P<.001), had less decisional conflict (1.40 vs 1.62, P =.02), and were more satisfied with decision making (4.50 vs 4.32, P =.05) following the consultation. Patients who used the decision board were more likely to choose BCT (94% vs 76%, P =.03). The decision board was helpful in improving communication and enabling women to make a choice regarding treatment. Such instruments should be considered by surgeons when communicating the different surgical options to women with breast cancer.JAMA The Journal of the American Medical Association 07/2004; 292(4):435-41. · 29.98 Impact Factor
- [show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: To examine patient preferences for currently available and promising osteoporosis treatment options. We recruited patients who had recently (within 2 weeks) undergone bone densitometry and were found to have osteoporosis. Consenting participants completed an Adaptive Conjoint Analysis questionnaire to determine their treatment preferences for oral bisphosphonates taken once per week, intravenous bisphosphonates administered every 3 months, intravenous bisphosphonates administered once per year, and subcutaneous recombinant human parathyroid hormone (rhPTH). We performed simulations based on respondents' values for route of administration, absolute reduction in risk of vertebral and hip fractures over 5 years, and risk of adverse effects to predict each respondent's treatment choice. The study sample included 201 women and 11 men (median age 73). Patients' treatment preferences were strongly influenced by route of administration. Patients' preferred treatment option, across all simulations, was bisphosphonates. Among 80 treatment-naive participants, 52 (65%) preferred an annual infusion over oral weekly bisphosphonates. Participants with poorer perceived health status, those with a high perceived risk of future fracture, and participants preferring to treat health problems without doctors or prescription drugs were more likely to prefer an annual infusion over weekly pills. Patient preferences for osteoporosis treatment options are strongly influenced by route of administration. Therefore, despite the added benefits of rhPTH, patients' preferred treatment option for osteoporosis is bisphosphonates. Among those preferring bisphosphonates, many preferred annual infusions over weekly oral medications, emphasizing the need to incorporate individual patient preferences into treatment decisions for osteoporosis. The latter is especially important given the poor rates of long-term adherence to osteoporosis medications.Arthritis & Rheumatism 11/2006; 55(5):729-35. · 7.48 Impact Factor