» Articles » PMID: 33376311

Patients' Preferences Regarding Osteoarthritis Medications: An Adaptive Choice-Based Conjoint Analysis Study

Overview
Date 2020 Dec 30
PMID 33376311
Citations 6
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background And Objective: Osteoarthritis (OA) patients consider ranges of harms and benefits offered by alternative pharmaceutical treatments. Choice-based experiments provide a mechanism to value outcomes, but they can pose a significant burden on respondents. Thus, the number of attributes studied is typically artificially restricted. We used an adaptive choice-based conjoint (ACBC) method that allows the inclusion of more attributes affecting patients' preferences regarding non-invasive pharmaceutical treatment for OA than traditional choice-based technique to better understand the trade-offs that OA patients consider, without increasing respondents' burden.

Methods: After consulting with OA patients and public involvement (PPI) group, we constructed an online ACBC survey consisting of 9 attributes and a total of 31 levels (two benefits, four harms and three concerning the availability and modality of treatment). A cohort of patients with a diagnosis of OA and reporting joint pain within the last 12 months were recruited.

Results: Our study (n 43) showed that the most important factor in choosing OA medication was the risk of heart attacks and strokes (19.5%), followed by the risk of addiction (18.4%), risk of kidney and liver side effects (17.5%), risk stomach side effects (14.6%), availability (11.6%), frequency of use (5.3%), pain reduction (5%), way of taking medication (4.6%) and mobility improvement (3.5%).

Conclusion: ACBC provides a mechanism for understanding patient preferences that address the limitations of traditional choice-based experiments. For OA patients, avoidance of the risk of side effects were the most affecting medication choices, and reductions in pain and mobility were the least. Clinicians discussing options for medication with OA patients should discuss the potential trade-offs in terms of risks and benefits.

Citing Articles

A mixed-methods approach exploring acceptability and feasibility of trials designed to test drugs targeting prevention of post-traumatic osteoarthritis after knee injury.

Kalsoum R, Minns Lowe C, Gilbert S, McCaskie A, Snow M, Wright K Bone Joint Res. 2024; 13(9):513-524.

PMID: 39293808 PMC: 11410398. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.139.BJR-2024-0109.


Using Adaptive Choice-Based Conjoint Approach to Facilitate Shared Decision-Making in Osteoarthritis Management: A Patient Perception Study.

Al-Omari B, Farhat J, Odeh M, Khan M, Grancharov H, Abu Zahr Z Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2024; 77(2):240-250.

PMID: 39245920 PMC: 11771733. DOI: 10.1002/acr.25429.


Exploring patient treatment decision making for osteoarthritis in the UAE: a cross-sectional adaptive choice-based conjoint study.

Al-Omari B, Farhat J, Khan M, Grancharov H, Abu Zahr Z, Hanna S BMC Public Health. 2023; 23(1):1542.

PMID: 37573337 PMC: 10423421. DOI: 10.1186/s12889-023-16490-1.


Chondroitin sulfate and glucosamine combination in patients with knee and hip osteoarthritis: A long-term observational study in Russia.

Lila A, Alekseeva L, Baranov A, Taskina E, Kashevarova N, Lapkina N World J Orthop. 2023; 14(6):443-457.

PMID: 37377986 PMC: 10292059. DOI: 10.5312/wjo.v14.i6.443.


The Role of Web-Based Adaptive Choice-Based Conjoint Analysis Technology in Eliciting Patients' Preferences for Osteoarthritis Treatment.

Al-Omari B, Farhat J, Shraim M Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2023; 20(4).

PMID: 36834057 PMC: 9959784. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph20043364.


References
1.
Brembo E, Kapstad H, Eide T, Mansson L, van Dulmen S, Eide H . Patient information and emotional needs across the hip osteoarthritis continuum: a qualitative study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2016; 16:88. PMC: 4788906. DOI: 10.1186/s12913-016-1342-5. View

2.
Fraenkel L, Wittink D, Concato J, Fried T . Informed choice and the widespread use of antiinflammatory drugs. Arthritis Rheum. 2004; 51(2):210-4. DOI: 10.1002/art.20247. View

3.
Lancsar E, Louviere J . Conducting discrete choice experiments to inform healthcare decision making: a user's guide. Pharmacoeconomics. 2008; 26(8):661-77. DOI: 10.2165/00019053-200826080-00004. View

4.
Reed Johnson F, Lancsar E, Marshall D, Kilambi V, Muhlbacher A, Regier D . Constructing experimental designs for discrete-choice experiments: report of the ISPOR Conjoint Analysis Experimental Design Good Research Practices Task Force. Value Health. 2013; 16(1):3-13. DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2012.08.2223. View

5.
Onishi K, Utturkar A, Chang E, Panush R, Hata J, Perret-Karimi D . Osteoarthritis: A Critical Review. Crit Rev Phys Rehabil Med. 2015; 24(3-4):251-264. PMC: 4349405. DOI: 10.1615/CritRevPhysRehabilMed.2013007630. View