Dataset Information

Outcome Preferences in Patients With Noninfectious Uveitis: Results of a Best-Worst Scaling Study.

ABSTRACT: To estimate patient preferences regarding potential adverse outcomes of local versus systemic corticosteroid therapies for noninfectious uveitis by using a best-worst scaling (BWS) approach.Local and systemic therapies are alternatives for noninfectious uveitis that have different potential adverse outcomes. Patients participating in the Multicenter Uveitis Steroid Treatment Trial Follow-up Study (MUST FS) and additional patients with a history of noninfectious uveitis treated at two academic medical centers (Johns Hopkins University and University of Pennsylvania) were surveyed about their preferences regarding six adverse outcomes deemed important to patients. Using "case 1" BWS, patients were asked to repeatedly select the most and least worrying from a list of outcomes (in the survey three outcomes per task).Eighty-two patients in the MUST FS and 100 patients treated at the academic medical centers completed the survey. According to BWS, patients were more likely to select vision not meeting the requirement for driving (individual BWS score: median = 3, interquartile range, 0-5), development of glaucoma (2, 1-4), and needing eye surgery (1, 0-3) as the most worrying outcomes as compared to needing medicine for high blood pressure/cholesterol (-2, -4 to 0), development of cataracts (-2, -3 to -1), or infection (sinusitis) (-3, -5 to 0). Larger BWS scores indicated the outcomes were more worrying to patients.Patients with noninfectious uveitis considered impaired vision, development of glaucoma, and need for eye surgery worrying adverse outcomes, which suggests that it is especially desirable to avoid these outcomes if possible. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00132691.)

SUBMITTER: Yu T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4627251 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Outcome Preferences in Patients With Noninfectious Uveitis: Results of a Best-Worst Scaling Study.

Yu Tsung T Holbrook Janet T JT Thorne Jennifer E JE Flynn Terry N TN Van Natta Mark L ML Puhan Milo A MA

Investigative ophthalmology & visual science 20151001 11

<h4>Purpose</h4>To estimate patient preferences regarding potential adverse outcomes of local versus systemic corticosteroid therapies for noninfectious uveitis by using a best-worst scaling (BWS) approach.<h4>Methods</h4>Local and systemic therapies are alternatives for noninfectious uveitis that have different potential adverse outcomes. Patients participating in the Multicenter Uveitis Steroid Treatment Trial Follow-up Study (MUST FS) and additional patients with a history of noninfectious uv ...[more]

PMID: 26501236

Similar Datasets

Project description:Epilepsy is a common, serious condition. Fortunately, seizure risk decreases with increasing seizure-free time on antiseizure medications (ASMs). Eventually, patients may consider whether to stop ASMs, which requires weighing treatment benefit versus burden. We developed a questionnaire to quantify patient preferences relevant to ASM decision-making. Respondents rated how concerning they would finding relevant items (e.g., seizure risks, side effects, cost) on a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS, 0-100) and then repeatedly chose the most and least concerning item from subsets (best-worst scaling, BWS). We pretested with neurologists, then recruited adults with epilepsy who were seizure-free at least one year. Primary outcomes were recruitment rate, and qualitative and Likert-based feedback. Secondary outcomes included VAS ratings and best-minus-worst scores. Thirty-one of 60 (52%) contacted patients completed the study. Most patients felt VAS questions were clear (28; 90%), easy to use (27; 87%), and assessed preferences well (25; 83%). Corresponding results for BWS questions were 27 (87%), 29 (97%), and 23 (77%). Physicians suggested adding a 'warmup' question showing a completed example and simplifying terminology. Patients suggested ways to clarify instructions. Cost, inconvenience of taking medication, and laboratory monitoring were the least concerning items. Cognitive side effects and a 50% seizure risk in the next year were the most concerning items. Twelve (39%) of patients made at least one 'inconsistent choice' for example ranking a higher seizure risk as lower concern compared with a lower seizure risk, though 'inconsistent choices' represented only 3% of all question blocks. Our recruitment rate was favorable, most patients agreed the survey was clear, and we describe areas for improvement. 'Inconsistent' responses may lead us to collapse seizure probability items into a single 'seizure' category. Evidence regarding how patients weigh benefits and harms may inform care and guideline development.

Project description:PurposeTo quantify patients' preferences for glaucoma outcomes and use this information to prioritize outcomes that are important to patients.DesignA cross-sectional study using best-worst scaling object case (BWS).ParticipantsTwo hundred seventy-four participants newly diagnosed with ocular hypertension or mild to moderate open angle glaucoma from three private practices and one academic medical center in the United States.MethodsWe designed a preference-elicitation survey based on findings from 25 semi-structured, qualitative interviews with patients with glaucoma (reported elsewhere). The survey asked participants to rate the importance of 13 glaucoma outcomes on a Likert scale as a warm-up exercise followed by completion of 13 BWS tasks. For each task, we presented participants a subset of four outcomes from the possible thirteen, and participants chose the most important and least important outcome. Outcomes included in the survey pertain to maintaining ability to perform vision-dependent activities of daily living (e.g., driving), maintaining visual function and perception (e.g., depth perception), minimizing need to take glaucoma drops, not experiencing ocular surface symptoms (e.g., red eyes, teary eyes), and having adequate control of intraocular pressure (IOP). We administered the survey online and analyzed response patterns using conditional logistic regression to determine the relative importance of different outcomes.Main outcomeOrdinal ranking of glaucoma outcomes based on preference weights.ResultsBetween September 1, 2017 and February 28, 2018, we invited 1035 patients to complete our survey, among whom 274 (26%) responded. Most participants were older than 65 years of age (146/274, 53%) and currently on IOP-lowering drops (179/274, 65%). Participants identified that outcomes with the largest relative importance weight were having "adequate IOP control" and ability to "drive a car during the day," and the outcomes with the smallest relative importance weights were "maintaining appearance of the eye" and "reducing the number of IOP-lowering drops".ConclusionsDetermining the relative importance of glaucoma outcomes to patients can help researchers design studies that may better inform clinical and regulatory decision-making. Although IOP is an outcome that researchers often measure in glaucoma clinical trials, patients also prioritized outcomes related to the ability to perform vision-dependent activities such as driving.

Project description:Food safety is a global public health issue, which often arises from asymmetric information between consumers and suppliers. With the development of information technology in human life, building a food traceability information sharing platform is viewed as one of the best ways to overcome the trust crisis and resolve the problem of information asymmetry in China. However, among the myriad information available from the food supply chain, there is a lack of knowledge on consumer preference. Based on the best-worst scaling approach, this paper investigated consumer preferences for vegetable, pork, and dairy product traceability information. Specifically, this paper measured the relative importance that consumers place on the traceable information. The results indicate that consumers have varying priorities for information in different cases. "Pesticide/veterinary use," "picking/slaughtering date," and "fertilizer/feed use" are the most preferred traceable information for Chinese consumers in the case of vegetables, while "picking/slaughtering date" and "history of illness and taking protective measures" are the most preferred information in the case of pork. In the case of dairy products, consumers prefer "processing information," "environmental information of the origin," and "traceable tag certification information" most. The results of this study call for the direct involvement of the Chinese government in the food safety information sharing system as following. First, given consumers' diverse preferences, different types of traceable information should be recorded into the information sharing platform depending on food types. Second, the government could promote the step-by-step construction of such a platform based on the priority of consumers' preferences. Third, new technology should be applied to guarantee the reliability of traceable information. Finally, local preferences in terms of the way consumers receive and understand information should be taken into consideration.

Project description:BackgroundOlder people with hypertension and multiple chronic conditions (MCC) receive complex treatments and face challenging trade-offs. Patients' preferences for different health outcomes can impact multiple treatment decisions. Since evidence about outcome preferences is especially scarce among people with MCC our aim was to elicit preferences of people with MCC for outcomes related to hypertension, and to determine how these outcomes should be weighed when benefits and harms are assessed for patient-centered clinical practice guidelines and health economic assessments.MethodsWe sent a best-worst scaling preference survey to a random sample identified from a primary care network of Kaiser Permanente (Colorado, USA). The sample included individuals age 60 or greater with hypertension and at least two other chronic conditions. We assessed average ranking of patient-important outcomes using conditional logit regression (stroke, heart attack, heart failure, dialysis, cognitive impairment, chronic kidney disease, acute kidney injury, fainting, injurious falls, low blood pressure with dizziness, treatment burden) and studied variation across individuals.ResultsOf 450 invited participants, 217 (48%) completed the survey, and we excluded 10 respondents who had more than two missing choices, resulting in a final sample of 207 respondents. Participants ranked stroke as the most worrisome outcome and treatment burden as the least worrisome outcome (conditional logit parameters: 3.19 (standard error 0.09) for stroke, 0 for treatment burden). None of the outcomes were always chosen as the most or least worrisome by more than 25% of respondents, indicating that all outcomes were somewhat worrisome to respondents. Predefined subgroup analyses according to age, self-reported life-expectancy, degree of comorbidity, number of medications and antihypertensive treatment did not reveal meaningful differences.ConclusionsAlthough some outcomes were more worrisome to patients than others, our results indicate that none of the outcomes should be disregarded for clinical practice guidelines and health economic assessments.

Project description:BackgroundSmartphone apps have been beneficial in controlling and preventing the COVID-19 pandemic. However, there is a gap in research surrounding the importance of smartphone app functions from a user's perspective. Although the insights and opinions of different stakeholders, such as policymakers and medical professionals, can influence the success of a public health policy, any strategy will face difficulty in achieving the expected effect if it is not based on a method that users can accept.ObjectiveThis study aimed to assess the importance of a hypothetical smartphone app's functions for managing health during a pandemic based on the perspective of user preferences.MethodsA cross-sectional and web-based survey using the best-worst scaling (BWS) method was used to investigate the general population's preferences for important smartphone app functions. Participants were recruited from a professional surveying company's web-based surveying panel. The attributes of the BWS questionnaire were developed based on a robust process, including literature review, interviews, and expert discussion. A balanced incomplete block design was used to construct the choice task to ensure the effectiveness of the research design. Count analysis, conditional logit model analysis, and mixed logit analysis were used to estimate preference heterogeneity among respondents.ResultsThe responses of 2153 participants were eligible for analysis. Nearly 55% (1192/2153) were female, and the mean age was 31.4 years. Most participants (1765/2153, 81.9%) had completed tertiary or higher education, and approximately 70% (1523/2153) were urban residents. The 3 most vital functions according to their selection were "surveillance and monitoring of infected cases," "quick self-screening," and "early detection of infected cases." The mixed logit regression model identified significant heterogeneity in preferences among respondents, and stratified analysis showed that some heterogeneities varied in respondents by demographics and COVID-19-related characteristics. Participants who preferred to use the app were more likely to assign a high weight to the preventive functions than those who did not prefer to use it. Conversely, participants who showed lower willingness to use the app tended to indicate a higher preference for supportive functions than those who preferred to use it.ConclusionsThis study ranks the importance of smartphone app features that provide health care services during a pandemic based on the general population's preferences in China. It provides empirical evidence for decision-makers to develop eHealth policies and strategies that address future public health crises from a person-centered care perspective. Continued use of apps and smart investment in digital health can help improve health outcomes and reduce the burden of disease on individuals and communities.

Dataset Information

Outcome Preferences in Patients With Noninfectious Uveitis: Results of a Best-Worst Scaling Study.

Publications

Outcome Preferences in Patients With Noninfectious Uveitis: Results of a Best-Worst Scaling Study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets