Understanding patient preferences for the treatment of lupus nephritis with Adaptive Conjoint Analysis

被引:62
作者
Fraenkel, L
Bogardus, S
Wittink, DR
机构
[1] Yale Univ, Dept Med, New Haven, CT 06520 USA
[2] VA Connecticut Hlth Care Syst, West Haven, CT USA
[3] Yale Univ, Sch Management, New Haven, CT USA
关键词
Conjoint analysis; lupus nephritis; patient preferences;
D O I
10.1097/00005650-200111000-00007
中图分类号
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号
摘要
BACKGROUND. Incorporation of patient preferences into treatment decisions is an essential component of medical care. Conjoint analysis is an established method of eliciting consumer preferences in market research and is being increasingly used to study patient preferences for health care. OBJECTIVE. To examine the value of Adaptive Conjoint Analysis (ACA), a unique method of performing conjoint analysis, and to evaluate patient treatment preferences. RESEARCH DESIGN. Interactive computer survey. SUBJECTS. Consecutive women (n = 103) with lupus followed in three community rheumatology practices. MEASURES. ACA was used to assess patients, relative preferences for specific cytotoxic medication characteristics, and to estimate the percentage of women preferring cyclophosphamide over azathioprine for different risk-benefit scenarios. RESULTS. All participants were able to complete the conjoint task in 14 +/- 5 minutes. Of the nine medication characteristics studied, efficacy and risk for infection had the greatest impact on preference (each accounting for 20% of the variation in preferences), suggesting that patients consider differences in the risk for infection equally as important as differences in the probability of renal survival. Premenopausal women wanting more children were less likely to choose cyclophosphamide compared with their counterparts (56% vs. 80%, P = 0.04). Modest changes in the probability of renal survival or risk for major toxicity lowered the percentage of women preferring cyclophosphamide by more than 20%, irrespective of their desire for more children. CONCLUSIONS. ACA is a feasible method of assessing how patients consider specific medication characteristics and predicting treatment preferences under different risk-benefit scenarios. ACA may be a valuable tool to incorporate patient preferences into medical decision-making.
引用
收藏
页码:1203 / 1216
页数:14
相关论文
共 57 条
[1]  
*ARTHR FDN, 1999, ARTH TOD DRUG GUID
[2]  
Austin HA, 1996, SEMIN NEPHROL, V16, P527
[3]   LUPUS NEPHRITIS [J].
BALOW, JE ;
AUSTIN, HA ;
TSOKOS, GC ;
ANTONOVYCH, TT ;
STEINBERG, AD ;
KLIPPEL, JH .
ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE, 1987, 106 (01) :79-94
[4]   Patients' preferences for participation in clinical decision making: A review of published surveys [J].
Benbassat, J ;
Pilpel, D ;
Tidhar, M .
BEHAVIORAL MEDICINE, 1998, 24 (02) :81-88
[5]   Perils, pitfalls, and possibilities in talking about medical risk [J].
Bogardus, ST ;
Holmboe, E ;
Jekel, JF .
JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 1999, 281 (11) :1037-1041
[6]   RISK FOR SUSTAINED AMENORRHEA IN PATIENTS WITH SYSTEMIC LUPUS-ERYTHEMATOSUS RECEIVING INTERMITTENT PULSE CYCLOPHOSPHAMIDE THERAPY [J].
BOUMPAS, DT ;
AUSTIN, HA ;
VAUGHAN, EM ;
YARBORO, CH ;
KLIPPEL, JH ;
BALOW, JE .
ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE, 1993, 119 (05) :366-369
[7]   CONTROLLED TRIAL OF PULSE METHYLPREDNISOLONE VERSUS 2 REGIMENS OF PULSE CYCLOPHOSPHAMIDE IN SEVERE LUPUS NEPHRITIS [J].
BOUMPAS, DT ;
AUSTIN, HA ;
VAUGHN, EM ;
KLIPPEL, JH ;
STEINBERG, AD ;
YARBORO, CH ;
BALOW, JE .
LANCET, 1992, 340 (8822) :741-745
[8]   Using a treatment-tradeoff method to elicit preferences for the treatment of locally advanced non-small-cell lung cancer [J].
Brundage, MD ;
Davidson, JR ;
Mackillop, WJ ;
Feldman-Stewart, D ;
Groome, P .
MEDICAL DECISION MAKING, 1998, 18 (03) :256-267
[9]   ON THE RECEIVING END PATIENT PERCEPTION OF THE SIDE-EFFECTS OF CANCER-CHEMOTHERAPY [J].
COATES, A ;
ABRAHAM, S ;
KAYE, SB ;
SOWERBUTTS, T ;
FREWIN, C ;
FOX, RM ;
TATTERSALL, MHN .
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CANCER & CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 1983, 19 (02) :203-208
[10]   Paternalism or partnership? [J].
Coulter, A .
BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 1999, 319 (7212) :719-720