Can a Discrete Choice Experiment contribute to person-centred healthcare?

2015 ◽  
Vol 3 (4) ◽  
pp. 431 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mette Kjer Kaltoft ◽  
Jesper Bo Neilsen ◽  
Glenn Salkeld ◽  
Jack Dowie
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Discrete Choice Experiment ◽  
Discrete Choice ◽  
Clinical Relevance ◽  
Choice Experiment ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Individual Preference ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Group Level ◽  
The Individual

In person-centred decision making the relative importance of the considerations that matter to the person is elicited and combined, at the point of decision, with the best estimates available on the performance of the available options on those criteria. Whatever procedure is used to implement this in a clinical decision, average preferences emerging from group or subgroup research cannot contribute directly, since they can have only a statistical relationship with the preferences of the individual person. The precise relationship is knowable by eliciting those of the individual concerned, but there would be little point consulting the averages if this is done. A scan of recent Discrete Choice Experiment (DCE) publications reveals frequent claims that the group-level results can somehow contribute to, or facilitate, better clinical decision making. Typically there are only vague or ambiguous indications of how this could happen, the ambiguity often arising from the use and positioning of the apostrophe in the words persons and patients. Only when the person opts out of preference provision and asks to be treated as ‘average’, can the results of a DCE have clinical relevance in genuinely person-centred healthcare. One cannot derive an ought from an is and one cannot derive an I from a they. DCE researchers should refrain from implying that their results could, let alone should, have any impact on person-centred clinical decisions. Group-level DCE results are clearly conceptually appropriate for health system or service decisions, but the suggestion that they have clinical relevance is a serious deterrent to the development and provision of effective means of individual preference elicitation and specification at the point of decision. Those who wish to foster person-centred care should be alert to the dangers of claims based on group-level analyses such as DCEs.  

scholarly journals Factors that influence variation in clinical decision-making about thrombolysis in the treatment of acute ischaemic stroke: results of a discrete choice experiment

2017 ◽  
Vol 5 (4) ◽  
pp. 1-116
Author(s):  
Richard G Thomson ◽  
Aoife De Brún ◽  
Darren Flynn ◽  
Laura Ternent ◽  
Christopher I Price ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Ischaemic Stroke ◽  
Discrete Choice ◽  
Acute Ischaemic Stroke ◽  
Choice Experiment ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Onset Time ◽  
Intravenous Thrombolysis ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Related Factors

BackgroundIntravenous thrombolysis for patients with acute ischaemic stroke is underused (only 80% of eligible patients receive it) and there is variation in its use across the UK. Previously, variation might have been explained by structural differences; however, continuing variation may reflect differences in clinical decision-making regarding the eligibility of patients for treatment. This variation in decision-making could lead to the underuse, or result in inappropriate use, of thrombolysis.ObjectivesTo identify the factors which contribute to variation in, and influence, clinicians’ decision-making about treating ischaemic stroke patients with intravenous thrombolysis.MethodsA discrete choice experiment (DCE) using hypothetical patient vignettes framed around areas of clinical uncertainty was conducted to better understand the influence of patient-related and clinician-related factors on clinical decision-making. An online DCE was developed following an iterative five-stage design process. UK-based clinicians involved in final decision-making about thrombolysis were invited to take part via national professional bodies of relevant medical specialties. Mixed-logit regression analyses were conducted.ResultsA total of 138 clinicians responded and opted to offer thrombolysis in 31.4% of cases. Seven patient factors were individually predictive of the increased likelihood of offering thrombolysis (compared with reference levels in brackets): stroke onset time of 2 hours 30 minutes (50 minutes); pre-stroke dependency modified Rankin Scale score (mRS) of 3 (mRS4); systolic blood pressure (SBP) of 185 mmHg (140 mmHg); stroke severity scores of National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) 5 without aphasia, NIHSS 14 and NIHSS 23 (NIHSS 2 without aphasia); age 85 years (65 years); and Afro-Caribbean (white). Factors predictive of not offering thrombolysis were age 95 years; stroke onset time of 4 hours 15 minutes; severe dementia (no memory problems); and SBP of 200 mmHg. Three clinician-related factors were predictive of an increased likelihood of offering thrombolysis (perceived robustness of the evidence for thrombolysis; thrombolysing more patients in the past 12 months; and high discomfort with uncertainty) and one factor was predictive of a decreased likelihood of offering treatment (clinicians’ being comfortable treating patients outside the licensing criteria).LimitationsWe anticipated a sample size of 150–200. Nonetheless, the final sample of 138 is good considering that the total population of eligible UK clinicians is relatively small. Furthermore, data from the Royal College of Physicians suggest that our sample is representative of clinicians involved in decision-making about thrombolysis.ConclusionsThere was considerable heterogeneity among respondents in thrombolysis decision-making, indicating that clinicians differ in their thresholds for treatment across a number of patient-related factors. Respondents were significantly more likely to treat 85-year-old patients than patients aged 68 years and this probably reflects acceptance of data from Third International Stroke Trial that report benefit for patients aged > 80 years. That respondents were more likely to offer thrombolysis to patients with severe stroke than to patients with mild stroke may indicate uncertainty/concern about the risk/benefit balance in treatment of minor stroke. Findings will be disseminated via peer-review publication and presentation at national/international conferences, and will be linked to training/continuing professional development (CPD) programmes.Future workThe nature of DCE design means that only a subset of potentially influential factors could be explored. Factors not explored in this study warrant future research. Training/CPD should address the impact of non-medical influences on decision-making using evidence-based strategies.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

scholarly journals Discrete choice experiment on educating value-based healthcare

2020 ◽  
pp. postgradmedj-2019-137190
Author(s):  
Cindy Y G Noben ◽  
Lorette A Stammen ◽  
Sanne Vaassen ◽  
Roel Haeren ◽  
Laurents Stassen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Medical Education ◽  
Discrete Choice Experiment ◽  
Discrete Choice ◽  
Choice Experiment ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Postgraduate Medical Education ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Process Of Care ◽  
Protected Time ◽  
Set Up

IntroductionIdentifying costs and values in healthcare interventions as well as the ability to measure and consider costs relative to value for patients are pivotal in clinical decision-making and medical education. This study explores residents’ preferences in educating value-based healthcare (VBHC) during postgraduate medical education. Exploring residents’ preferences in VBHC education, in order to understand what shapes their choices, might contribute to improved medical residency education and healthcare as a whole.MethodsA discrete choice experiment (DCE) examined which conditions for educating VBHC are preferred by residents. DCE gives more insight into the trade-off’s residents make when choosing alternatives, and which conditions for educating VBHC have the most influence on residents’ preference.ResultsThis DCE shows that residents prefer knowledge on both medical practice as well as the process of care—to be educated by an expert on VBHC together with a clinician. They prefer limited protected time to conduct VBHC initiatives (thus while at work) and desire the inclusion of VBHC in formal educational plans.ConclusionWhen optimising graduate and postgraduate medical education curricula, these preferences should be considered to create necessary conditions for the facilitation and participation of residents in VBHC education and the set-up of VBHC initiatives.

scholarly journals Survival or Mortality: Does Risk Attribute Framing Influence Decision-Making Behavior in a Discrete Choice Experiment?

2016 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
pp. 202-209 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jorien Veldwijk ◽  
Brigitte A.B. Essers ◽  
Mattijs S. Lambooij ◽  
Carmen D. Dirksen ◽  
Henriette A. Smit ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Discrete Choice Experiment ◽  
Discrete Choice ◽  
Choice Experiment ◽  
Decision Making Behavior

scholarly journals Strategies to increase downloads of COVID–19 exposure notification apps: A discrete choice experiment

PLoS ONE ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (11) ◽  
pp. e0258945
Author(s):  
Jemima A. Frimpong ◽  
Stéphane Helleringer
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Discrete Choice Experiment ◽  
Discrete Choice ◽  
Financial Incentives ◽  
Choice Experiment ◽  
Real Life ◽  
Contact Tracing ◽  
Reference Scenario ◽  
Pragmatic Trials ◽  
The Us

Exposure notification apps have been developed to assist in notifying individuals of recent exposures to SARS-CoV-2. However, in several countries, such apps have had limited uptake. We assessed whether strategies to increase downloads of exposure notification apps should emphasize improving the accuracy of the apps in recording contacts and exposures, strengthening privacy protections and/or offering financial incentives to potential users. In a discrete choice experiment with potential app users in the US, financial incentives were more than twice as important in decision-making about app downloads, than privacy protections, and app accuracy. The probability that a potential user would download an exposure notification app increased by 40% when offered a $100 reward to download (relative to a reference scenario in which the app is free). Financial incentives might help exposure notification apps reach uptake levels that improve the effectiveness of contact tracing programs and ultimately enhance efforts to control SARS-CoV-2. Rapid, pragmatic trials of financial incentives for app downloads in real-life settings are warranted.

Likelihood Ratio, Skull Roentgenograms, and Clinical Decision-Making

PEDIATRICS ◽  
1983 ◽  
Vol 71 (4) ◽  
pp. 673-674
Author(s):  
JOHN C. LEONIDAS ◽  
ANNA BINKIEWICZ ◽  
R. MICHAEL SCOTT ◽  
STEPHEN G. PAUKER
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Likelihood Ratio ◽  
Predictive Value ◽  
Clinical Finding ◽  
Posterior Probability ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Skull Fracture ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Negative Finding ◽  
The Individual

In Reply.— We appreciate the thoughtful comments of Leventhal and Lembo and concur with their conclusion that the clinician needs to know "the probability of skull fracture in a patient with head trauma." Unfortunately, their proposed "clinical likelihood ratio" (CR) will not further that end because it compares the predictive value (or, more precisely, the posterior probability) of a skull fracture after a positive clinical finding to the posterior probability after a negative finding. After the patient has been examined, the patient does not have both findings; thus, the CR cannot apply to the individual patient.

scholarly journals QOLP-03. MEASURING CHANGE IN HEALTH-RELATED QUALITY OF LIFE: THE ADDED VALUE OF ANALYSIS ON THE INDIVIDUAL PATIENT LEVEL IN GLIOMA PATIENTS IN CLINICAL DECISION MAKING

2019 ◽  
Vol 21 (Supplement_6) ◽  
pp. vi197-vi198 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marijke Coomans ◽  
Martin Taphoorn ◽  
Neil Aaronson ◽  
Brigitta Baumert ◽  
Martin van den Bent ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Scale Item ◽  
Individual Patient Level ◽  
Patient Level ◽  
Related Quality ◽  
The Individual ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Over Time

Abstract BACKGROUND: Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is an important outcome in glioma research, reflecting the impact of disease and treatment on a patient’s functioning and wellbeing. Data on changes in HRQoL scores provide important information for clinical decision-making, but different analytical methods may lead to different interpretations of the impact of treatment on HRQoL. This study aimed to study whether different methods to evaluate change in HRQoL result in different interpretations. Methods: HRQoL and sociodemographical/clinical data from 15 randomized clinical trials were combined. Change in HRQoL scores was analyzed: (1)at the group level, comparing mean changes in scale/item scores between treatment arms over time, (2)at the patient level per scale/item by calculating the percentage of patients that deteriorated, improved or remained stable on a scale/item per scale/item, and (3)at the individual patient level combining all scales/items. Results: Data were available for 3727 patients. At the group scale/item level (method 1), only the item ‘hair loss’ showed a significant and clinically relevant change (i.e. ≥10 points) over time, whereas change scores on the other scales/items showed a statistically significant change only (all p< .001, range in change score:0.1–6.2). Analyses on the patient level per scale (method 2) indicated that, while a large proportion of patients had stable HRQoL over time (range:27–84%), many patients deteriorated (range:6–43%) or improved (range:8–32%) on a specific scale/item. At the individual patient level (method 3), the majority of patients (86%) showed both deterioration and improvement, while only 1% of the patients remained stable on all scales. Conclusion: Different analytical methods of changes in HRQoL result in distinct interpretations of treatment effects, all of which may be relevant for clinical decision-making. Additional information about the joint impact of treatment on all outcomes may help patients and physicians to make the best treatment decision.

scholarly journals Factors that influence clinicians’ decisions to offer intravenous alteplase in acute ischemic stroke patients with uncertain treatment indication: Results of a discrete choice experiment

2017 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 74-82 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aoife De Brún ◽  
Darren Flynn ◽  
Laura Ternent ◽  
Christopher I Price ◽  
Helen Rodgers ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Ischemic Stroke ◽  
Acute Ischemic Stroke ◽  
Discrete Choice Experiment ◽  
Discrete Choice ◽  
Choice Experiment ◽  
Onset Time ◽  
Stroke Onset ◽  
Related Factors ◽  
Intravenous Alteplase

Background Treatment with intravenous alteplase for eligible patients with acute ischemic stroke is underused, with variation in treatment rates across the UK. This study sought to elucidate factors influencing variation in clinicians’ decision-making about this thrombolytic treatment. Methods A discrete choice experiment using hypothetical patient vignettes framed around areas of clinical uncertainty was conducted with UK-based clinicians. Mixed logit regression analyses were conducted on the data. Results A total of 138 clinicians completed the discrete choice experiment. Seven patient factors were individually predictive of increased likelihood of immediately offering IV alteplase (compared to reference levels in brackets): stroke onset time 2 h 30 min [50 min]; pre-stroke dependency mRS 3 [mRS 4]; systolic blood pressure 185 mm/Hg [140 mm/Hg]; stroke severity scores of NIHSS 5 without aphasia, NIHSS 14 and NIHSS 23 [NIHSS 2 without aphasia]; age 85 [68]; Afro-Caribbean [white]. Factors predictive of withholding treatment with IV alteplase were: age 95 [68]; stroke onset time of 4 h 15 min [50 min]; severe dementia [no memory problems]; SBP 200 mm/Hg [140 mm/Hg]. Three clinician-related factors were predictive of an increased likelihood of offering IV alteplase (perceived robustness of the evidence for IV alteplase; thrombolyzing more patients in the past 12 months; and high discomfort with uncertainty) and one with a decreased likelihood (high clinician comfort with treating patients outside the licensing criteria). Conclusions Both patient- and clinician-related factors have a major influence on the use of alteplase to treat patients with acute ischemic stroke. Clinicians’ views of the evidence, comfort with uncertainty and treating patients outside the license criteria are important factors to address in programs that seek to reduce variation in care quality regarding treatment with IV alteplase. Further research is needed to further understand the differences in clinical decision-making about treating patients with acute ischemic stroke with IV alteplase.

scholarly journals OS7.2 Measuring change in health-related quality of life: the added value of analysis on the individual patient level in glioma patients in clinical decision making

2019 ◽  
Vol 21 (Supplement_3) ◽  
pp. iii14-iii14
Author(s):  
M Coomans ◽  
M J B Taphoorn ◽  
N Aaronson ◽  
B G Baumert ◽  
M van den Bent ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Scale Item ◽  
Individual Patient Level ◽  
Patient Level ◽  
Related Quality ◽  
The Individual ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Over Time

Abstract BACKGROUND Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is often used as an outcome in glioma research, reflecting the impact of disease and treatment on a patient’s functioning and wellbeing. Data on changes in HRQoL scores may provide important information for clinical decision-making, but different analytical methods may lead to different interpretations of the impact of treatment on HRQoL. This study aimed to examine three different methods to evaluate change in HRQoL, and to study whether these methods result in different interpretations. MATERIAL AND METHODS HRQoL and sociodemographical/clinical data from 15 randomized clinical trials were combined. Change in HRQoL scores was analyzed in three ways: (1) at the group level, comparing mean changes in scale/item scores between treatment arms over time, (2) at the patient level per scale/item by calculating the percentage of patients that deteriorated, improved or remained stable on a scale/item per scale/item, and (3) at the individual patient level combining all scales/items. RESULTS Baseline and first follow-up HRQoL data were available for 3727 patients. At the group scale/item level (method 1), only the item ‘hair loss’ showed a significant and clinically relevant change (i.e. ≥10 points) over time, whereas change scores on the other scales/items showed a statistically significant change only (all p<.001, range in change score: 0.1–6.2). Analyses on the patient level per scale (method 2) indicated that, while a large proportion of patients had stable HRQoL over time (range 27–84%), many patients deteriorated (range: 6–43%) or improved (range: 8–32%) on a specific scale/item. At the individual patient level (method 3), the majority of patients (86%) showed both deterioration and improvement, while only 1% of the patients remained stable on all scales. Clustering on clinical characteristics (WHO performance status, sex, tumor type, type of resection, newly diagnosed versus recurrent tumor and age) did not identify subgroups of patients with a specific pattern of change in their HRQoL score. CONCLUSION Different analytical methods of changes in HRQoL result in distinct interpretations of treatment effects, all of which may be relevant for clinical decision-making. Additional information about the joint impact of treatment on all outcomes, showing that most patients experience both deterioration and improvement, may help patients and physicians to make the best treatment decision.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document