respondents Preferences relate to an a priori assessment of possible alternatives eg health states treatment options etc Implicit in the assessment of preferences is a tradeoff between the perceived ID: 897510
Download Pdf The PPT/PDF document "This work is supported by the PatientCen..." is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
1 !This work is supported by the Patient-C
!This work is supported by the Patient-Centered Outcomes
2 Research Institute (PCORI) Methods Progr
Research Institute (PCORI) Methods Program Award (ME-1303
3 -5946). ¥!John Bridges is supported by t
-5946). ¥!John Bridges is supported by the FDA-Johns Hopk
4 ins Center for Excellence in Regulatory
ins Center for Excellence in Regulatory Science and Innov
5 ation (CERSI) ¥!Co-investigators: ¥ resp
ation (CERSI) ¥!Co-investigators: ¥ respondents ¥!Prefere
6 nces relate to an a priori assessment of
nces relate to an a priori assessment of possible alterna
7 tives (e.g. health states, treatment opt
tives (e.g. health states, treatment options etc). Implic
8 it in the assessment of preferences is
it in the assessment of preferences is a tradeoff betwee
9 n the perceived benefits and harms Obje
n the perceived benefits and harms Objective: To gather
10 existing evidence on preferences and uti
existing evidence on preferences and utilize the existing
11 literature to develop the instrument ¥
literature to develop the instrument ¥!Combined article
12 s from three literature reviews on treat
s from three literature reviews on treatment preferences
13 of adults with diabetes ¥!Extracted att
of adults with diabetes ¥!Extracted attributes from disc
14 rete choice experiments (DCE) and conjoi
rete choice experiments (DCE) and conjoint analyses (CA)
15 Decision Framework: ÒSuppose that your
Decision Framework: ÒSuppose that your doctor says that
16 your current Objective: To ensure acce
your current Objective: To ensure acceptability of the
17 instrument to Medium benefit and risk
instrument to Medium benefit and risk Lowest benefit/Hi
18 ghest risk A1c levels go down !1% 0.5%
ghest risk A1c levels go down !1% 0.5% 0% Stable blood
19 glucose !6 days per week 4 days per wee
glucose !6 days per week 4 days per week 2 days per week
20 Low blood 1 pill per day 2 pills per
Low blood 1 pill per day 2 pills per day 1 pill and 1
21 injection per day Additional out-of-pock
injection per day Additional out-of-pocket costs !$10 per
22 month #I"Attributes Medicine A Medici
month #I"Attributes Medicine A Medicine B A1c levels g
23 o Medicine A Best Worst A1c levels g
o Medicine A Best Worst A1c levels go down 1% ä´ ä
24 ´ Stable blood sugar 4 days/wk ä´ ä´
´ Stable blood sugar 4 days/wk ä´ ä´ Low blood glucose
25 6 attributes at 3 levels each ¥!Bayesi
6 attributes at 3 levels each ¥!Bayesian efficient desi
26 gn: ¥!48 profile pairs divided into 4 b
gn: ¥!48 profile pairs divided into 4 blocks ¥!Added 2 h
27 oldout tasks to each block ¥!18 profile
oldout tasks to each block ¥!18 profile pairs per partici
28 pant ¥!Prompt: Consider the following tw
pant ¥!Prompt: Consider the following two diabetes medici
29 nes. Which medicine would you prefer? BW
nes. Which medicine would you prefer? BWS ¥!6 attribute
30 s at 3 levels each 286 (0.51) 289 (0.52
s at 3 levels each 286 (0.51) 289 (0.52) Black (N, prop)
31 128 (0.23) 126 (0.23) Hispanic (N, prop
128 (0.23) 126 (0.23) Hispanic (N, prop) 117 (0.21) 119
32 (0.22) Other (N, prop) 20 (0.04) 18 (0.0
(0.22) Other (N, prop) 20 (0.04) 18 (0.03) Education .393
33 No HS degree (N, prop) 39 (0.07) 43 (0.
No HS degree (N, prop) 39 (0.07) 43 (0.08) HS degree (N,
34 prop) 174 (0.32) 188 (0.34) Some colleg
prop) 174 (0.32) 188 (0.34) Some college (N, prop) 182 (
35 0.33) 156 (0.28) BachelorÕs or higher -
0.33) 156 (0.28) BachelorÕs or higher -1.9 -1.7 -1.5 -1.
36 3 -1.1 -0.9 -0.7 -0.5 Day and/or night
3 -1.1 -0.9 -0.7 -0.5 Day and/or night None 30 minutes 9
37 0 minutes 1 pill 2 pills 1 pill and 1 in
0 minutes 1 pill 2 pills 1 pill and 1 injection $10 $30 $
38 50 Class 1 Class 2 !"#$%&#'&()&$*+(,-&$,
50 Class 1 Class 2 !"#$%&#'&()&$*+(,-&$,-..%$/-0#.)&$$1.2
39 $,-..%$/-0#.)&$3(0)&($$4'&(+5&6+$,0'%&6$
$,-..%$/-0#.)&$3(0)&($$4'&(+5&6+$,0'%&6$70+8.98:.#;&+$#.)
40 +$ Participants did not express a strong
+$ Participants did not express a strong preference towar
41 ds BWS or DCE. ¥!Preference weights obta
ds BWS or DCE. ¥!Preference weights obtained from BWS or
42 DCE had high correlation, but were on a
DCE had high correlation, but were on a different scale.
43 ¥!Significant preference heterogeneity
¥!Significant preference heterogeneity was observed in m