Patient Preference and Adherence (May 2020)
Using a Discrete-Choice Experiment in a Decision Aid to Nudge Patients Towards Value-Concordant Treatment Choices in Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Proof-of-Concept Study
Abstract
Glen S Hazlewood,1– 3 Deborah A Marshall,1– 3 Claire EH Barber,1– 3 Linda C Li,3 Cheryl Barnabe,1– 3 Vivian Bykerk,4,5 Peter Tugwell,6 Pauline M Hull,7 Nick Bansback3,8 1Departments of Medicine and Community Health Sciences, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada; 2McCaig Institute of Bone and Joint Health, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada; 3Arthritis Research Canada, Vancouver, BC, Canada; 4Weill Cornell Medical College, Cornell University, New York, NY, USA; 5Department of Rheumatology, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, NY, USA; 6Department of Medicine, Department of Epidemiology and Community Medicine, Canada Research Chair, University of Ottawa, Institute of Population Health, Ottawa, Canada; 7University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada; 8Faculty of Medicine, School of Population and Public Health, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, CanadaCorrespondence: Glen S HazlewoodDepartments of Medicine and Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary, 3280 Hospital Drive NW, 3AA10, Calgary AB T2N 4Z6, CanadaTel +1 403 220-5903Fax +1 403 210-3899Email [email protected]: To evaluate, in a proof-of-concept study, a decision aid that incorporates hypothetical choices in the form of a discrete-choice experiment (DCE), to help patients with early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) understand their values and nudge them towards a value-centric decision between methotrexate and triple therapy (a combination of methotrexate, sulphasalazine and hydroxychloroquine).Patients and Methods: In the decision aid, patients completed a series of 6 DCE choice tasks. Based on the patient’s pattern of responses, we calculated his/her probability of choosing each treatment, using data from a prior DCE. Following pilot testing, we conducted a cross-sectional study to determine the agreement between the predicted and final stated preference, as a measure of value concordance. Secondary outcomes including time to completion and usability were also evaluated.Results: Pilot testing was completed with 10 patients and adjustments were made. We then recruited 29 patients to complete the survey: median age 57, 55% female. The patients were all taking treatment and had well-controlled disease. The predicted treatment agreed with the final treatment chosen by the patient 21/29 times (72%), similar to the expected agreement from the mean of the predicted probabilities (68%). Triple therapy was the predicted treatment 24/29 times (83%) and chosen 20/29 (69%) times. Half of the patients (51%) agreed that completing the choice questions helped them to understand their preferences (38% neutral, 10% disagreed). The tool took an average of 15 minutes to complete, and median usability scores were 55 (system usability scale) indicating “OK” usability.Conclusion: Using a DCE as a value-clarification task within a decision aid is feasible, with promising potential to help nudge patients towards a value-centric decision. Usability testing suggests further modifications are needed prior to implementation, perhaps by having the DCE exercises as an “add-on” to a simpler decision aid.Keywords: conjoint analysis, decision tool, value concordance, methotrexate
