Dataset Information

Noninferiority Margin Size and Acceptance of Trial Results: Contingent Valuation Survey of Clinician Preferences for Noninferior Mortality.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

We used modified contingent valuation methodology to determine how noninferiority margin sizes influence clinicians' willingness to accept clinical trial results that compare mortality in critically ill children.

Methods

We surveyed pediatric infectious diseases and critical care clinicians in Canada, Australia, and New Zealand and randomized respondents to review 1 of 9 mock abstracts describing a noninferiority trial of bacteremic critically ill children assigned to 7 or 14 d of antibiotics. Each scenario showed higher mortality in the 7-d group but met noninferiority criterion. We explored how noninferiority margins and baseline mortality rates influenced respondent acceptance of results.

Results

There were 106 survey respondents: 65 (61%) critical care clinicians, 28 (26%) infectious diseases physicians, and 13 (12%) pharmacists. When noninferiority margins were 5% and 10%, 73% (24/33) and 79% (27/33) respondents would accept shorter treatment, compared with 44% (17/39) when the margin was 20% (P = 0.003). Logistic regression adjusted for baseline mortality showed 5% and 10% noninferiority margins were more likely to be associated with acceptance of shorter treatment compared with 20% margins (odds ratio [OR] 3.5, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.3-9.6, P = 0.013; OR 5.1, 95% CI: 1.8-14.6, P = 0.002). Baseline mortality was not a significant predictor of acceptance of shorter treatment.

Conclusions

Clinicians are more likely to accept shorter treatment when noninferiority margins are ≤10%. However, nearly half of respondents who reviewed abstracts with 20% margins were still willing to accept shorter treatment. This is a novel application of contingent valuation methodology to elicit acceptance of research results among end users of the medical literature.

Highlights

Clinicians are more likely to accept shorter treatment durations based on noninferior mortality results when the noninferiority margin is 5% or 10% than if the margin is 20%.However, nearly half of clinicians would still accept shorter-duration treatment as noninferior with margins of 20%.Baseline mortality does not independently predict acceptance of shorter-duration treatment.Contingent valuation is a novel approach to elicit the acceptance of research design parameters from the perspective of endusers of the medical literature.

SUBMITTER: Pong S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9277322 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundMalaysia has been experiencing an escalation in dengue cases since the past 5 years. As the dengue vaccine pipeline continues to develop steadily with strong public interests, this study had been sought to elicit the acceptance and the willingness to pay (WTP) for hypothetical dengue vaccine in Malaysia.MethodsThis study adopted the cross-sectional, contingent valuation study that involved 400 respondents in Penang, Malaysia. The double-bounded dichotomous choice via bidding game approach was employed to elicit the WTP value for two hypothetical 3-doses dengue vaccines (Vaccines A and B with 5- and 10-years' protection, respectively against dengue). A univariate logistic regression model was employed to assess the key determinants of vaccine acceptance, while the mean WTP value and its associated factors were measured by using the parametric two-part model (TPM).ResultsDengue vaccine appeared to be highly acceptable (88.4%) among the population in Penang, Malaysia. Respondents who were of Chinese ethnicity (OR 0.36, p = 0.017), with higher dengue knowledge score (OR 1.43, p = 0.016), and higher vaccination attitude score (OR 1.91, p < 0.001) were more likely to accept the vaccine. The first step logit estimation from TPM displayed that pensioners (OR 2.37, p = 0.036), respondents who were self-employed or working in the private sector (OR 1.21, p = 0.002), respondents with higher education level (OR 2.09-3.29, p < 0.05), and those who accepted the vaccine (OR 3.23, p = 0.001) were more likely to pay for the vaccine. The adjusted mean WTP value for the vaccine was MYR39.21 (USD9.45) per dose. Next, the second-stage regression from TPM revealed the key factors that significantly affected the WTP value, which were composed of age, gender, occupation, household income, dengue prevention practice, and protection duration of the vaccine. The pensioners and those with better dengue prevention practice were willing to pay more for the vaccines. Additionally, all the respondents elicited a higher WTP amount toward the vaccine with longer protection duration (Vaccine B).ConclusionStrong acceptance toward dengue vaccine reflects the high value of the vaccine in Malaysia. The WTP estimates offer quantification of the private benefit in reducing occurrences of the disease. Besides, the people's preferences-based WTP value for the vaccine tends to complement scientific decision-making and prioritization in the management of dengue in the country.

Project description:BackgroundChanging population demographics and technology developments have resulted in growing interest in the potential of consumer-facing digital health. In the United Kingdom, a £37 million (US $49 million) national digital health program delivering assisted living lifestyles at scale (dallas) aimed to deploy such technologies at scale. However, little is known about how consumers value such digital health opportunities.ObjectiveThis study explored consumers' perspectives on the potential value of digital health technologies, particularly mobile health (mHealth), to promote well-being by examining their willingness-to-pay (WTP) for such health solutions.MethodsA contingent valuation study involving a UK-wide survey that asked participants to report open-ended absolute and marginal WTP or willingness-to-accept for the gain or loss of a hypothetical mHealth app, Healthy Connections.ResultsA UK-representative cohort (n=1697) and a dallas-like (representative of dallas intervention communities) cohort (n=305) were surveyed. Positive absolute and marginal WTP valuations of the app were identified across both cohorts (absolute WTP: UK-representative cohort £196 or US $258 and dallas-like cohort £162 or US $214; marginal WTP: UK-representative cohort £160 or US $211 and dallas-like cohort £151 or US $199). Among both cohorts, there was a high prevalence of zeros for both the absolute WTP (UK-representative cohort: 467/1697, 27.52% and dallas-like cohort: 95/305, 31.15%) and marginal WTP (UK-representative cohort: 487/1697, 28.70% and dallas-like cohort: 99/305, 32.5%). In both cohorts, better general health, previous amount spent on health apps (UK-representative cohort 0.64, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.01; dallas-like cohort: 1.27, 95% CI 0.32 to 2.23), and age had a significant (P>.00) association with WTP (UK-representative cohort: -0.1, 95% CI -0.02 to -0.01; dallas-like cohort: -0.02, 95% CI -0.03 to -0.01), with younger participants willing to pay more for the app. In the UK-representative cohort, as expected, higher WTP was positively associated with income up to £30,000 or US $39,642 (0.21, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.4) and increased spending on existing phone and internet services (0.52, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.74). The amount spent on existing health apps was shown to be a positive indicator of WTP across cohorts, although the effect was marginal (UK-representative cohort 0.01, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.01; dallas-like cohort 0.01, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.02).ConclusionsThis study demonstrates that consumers value mHealth solutions that promote well-being, social connectivity, and health care control, but it is not universally embraced. For mHealth to achieve its potential, apps need to be tailored to user accessibility and health needs, and more understanding of what hinders frequent users of digital technologies and those with long-term conditions is required. This novel application of WTP in a digital health context demonstrates an economic argument for investing in upskilling the population to promote access and expedite uptake and utilization of such digital health and well-being apps.

Project description:BackgroundReal-time clinical decision support (CDS) integrated into clinicians' workflow has the potential to profoundly affect the cost, quality, and safety of health care delivery. Recent reports have identified a surprisingly low acceptance rate for different types of CDS. We hypothesized that factors affecting CDS system acceptance could be categorized as relating to differences in patients, physicians, CDS-type, or environmental characteristics.MethodsWe conducted a survey of all adult primary care physicians (PCPs, n = 225) within our group model Health Maintenance Organization (HMO) to identify factors that affect their acceptance of CDS. We defined clinical decision support broadly as "clinical information" that is either provided to you or accessible by you, from the clinical workstation (e.g., enhanced flow sheet displays, health maintenance reminders, alternative medication suggestions, order sets, alerts, and access to any internet-based information resources).Results110 surveys were returned (49%). There were no differences in the age, gender, or years of service between those who returned the survey and the entire adult PCP population. Overall, clinicians stated that the CDS provided "helps them take better care of their patients" (3.6 on scale of 1:Never-5:Always), "is worth the time it takes" (3.5), and "reminds them of something they've forgotten" (3.2). There was no difference in the perceived acceptance rate of alerts based on their type (i.e., cost, safety, health maintenance). When asked about specific patient characteristics that would make the clinicians "more", "equally" or "less" likely to accept alerts: 41% stated that they were more (8% stated "less") likely to accept alerts on elderly patients (> 65 yrs); 38% were more (14% stated less) likely to accept alerts on patients with more than 5 current medications; and 38% were more (20% stated less) likely to accept alerts on patients with more than 5 chronic clinical conditions. Interestingly, 80% said they were less likely to accept alerts when they were behind schedule and 84% of clinicians admitted to being at least 20 minutes behind schedule "some", "most", or "all of the time".ConclusionEven though a majority of our clinical decision support suggestions are not explicitly followed, clinicians feel they are of benefit and would be even more beneficial if they had more time available to address them.

Project description:Medication errors are common in hospitals. These errors can result in adverse drug events (ADEs), which can reduce the health and well-being of patients', and their relatives and caregivers. Interventions have been developed to reduce medication errors, including those that occur at the administration stage.ObjectiveWe aimed to elicit willingness-to-pay (WTP) values to prevent hospital medication administration errors.Design and settingAn online, contingent valuation (CV) survey was conducted, using the random card-sort elicitation method, to elicit WTP to prevent medication errors.ParticipantsA representative sample of the UK public.MethodsSeven medication error scenarios, varying in the potential for harm and the severity of harm, were valued. Scenarios were developed with input from: clinical experts, focus groups with members of the public and piloting. Mean and median WTP values were calculated, excluding protest responses or those that failed a logic test. A two-part model (logit, generalised linear model) regression analysis was conducted to explore predictive characteristics of WTP.ResultsResponses were collected from 1001 individuals. The proportion of respondents willing to pay to prevent a medication error increased as the severity of the ADE increased and was highest for scenarios that described actual harm occurring. Mean WTP across the scenarios ranged from £45 (95% CI £36 to £54) to £278 (95% CI £200 to £355). Several factors influenced both the value and likelihood of WTP, such as: income, known experience of medication errors, sex, field of work, marriage status, education level and employment status. Predictors of WTP were not, however, consistent across scenarios.ConclusionsThis CV study highlights how the UK public value preventing medication errors. The findings from this study could be used to carry out a cost-benefit analysis which could inform implementation decisions on the use of technology to reduce medication administration errors in UK hospitals.

Project description:BackgroundA greater emphasis on providing high-value orthopaedic interventions has resulted in increased health economic reporting. The contingent-valuation method (CVM) is used to determine consumer valuation of the benefits provided by healthcare interventions. CVM is an important value-based health economic tool that is underutilized in orthopaedic surgery.Questions/purposesThe purpose of this study was to (1) identify previously published CVM studies in the orthopaedic literature, (2) assess the methodologies used for CVM research, and (3) understand how CVM has been used in the orthopaedic cost-benefit analysis framework.MethodsA systematic review of the literature using the MEDLINE database was performed to compile CVM studies. Search terms incorporated the phrase willingness to pay (WTP) or willingness to accept (WTA) in combination with orthopaedic clinical key terms. Study methodology was appraised using previously defined empirical and conceptual criteria for CVM studies.ResultsOf the 160 studies retrieved, 22 (13.8%) met our inclusion criteria. The economics of joint arthroplasty (n?=?6, 27.3%) and non-operative osteoarthritis care (n?=?4, 18.2%) were the most common topics. Most studies used CVM for pricing and/or demand forecasting (n?=?16, 72.7%); very few studies used CVM for program evaluation (n?=?6). WTP was used in all included studies, and one study used both WTP and WTA. Otherwise, there was little consistency among included studies in terms of CVM methodology. Open-ended questioning was used by only ten studies (45.5%), a significant number of studies did not perform a sensitivity analysis (n?=?9, 40.9%), and none of the studies accounted for the risk preference of subjects. Only two of the included studies applied CVM within a cost-benefit analysis framework.ConclusionCVM is not commonly reported in orthopaedic surgery and is seldom used in the context of cost-benefit analysis. There is wide variability in the methods used to perform CVM. We propose that CVM is an appropriate and underappreciated method for understanding the value of orthopaedic interventions. Increased attention should be paid to consumer valuations for orthopaedic interventions.