Exploring Decisional Conflict With Measures of Numeracy and Optimism in a Stated Preference Survey

Overview

Journal MDM Policy Pract

Publisher Sage Publications

Specialty General Medicine

Date 2021 Nov 19

PMID 34796268

Authors

Jessie Sutphin

Rachael L DiSantostefano

Colton Leach

Brett Hauber

Carol Mansfield

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Objectives: Low optimism and low numeracy are associated with difficulty or lack of participation in making treatment-related health care decisions. We investigated whether low optimism and low self-reported numeracy scores could help uncover evidence of decisional conflict in a discrete-choice experiment (DCE).

Methods: Preferences for a treatment to delay type 1 diabetes were elicited using a DCE among 1501 parents in the United States. Respondents chose between two hypothetical treatments or they could choose no treatment (opt out) in a series of choice questions. The survey included a measure of optimism and a measure of subjective numeracy. We used latent class analyses where membership probability was predicted by optimism and numeracy scores.

Results: Respondents with lower optimism scores had a higher probability of membership in a class with disordered preferences ( value for optimism coefficient = 0.032). Those with lower self-reported numeracy scores were more likely to be in a class with a strong preference for opting out and disordered preferences ( = 0.000) or a class with a preference for opting out and avoiding serious treatment-related risks ( = 0.015).

Conclusions: If respondents with lower optimism and numeracy scores are more likely to choose to opt out or have disordered preferences in a DCE, it may indicate that they have difficulty completing choice tasks.

References

Hauber A, Gonzalez J, Groothuis-Oudshoorn C, Prior T, Marshall D, Cunningham C . Statistical Methods for the Analysis of Discrete Choice Experiments: A Report of the ISPOR Conjoint Analysis Good Research Practices Task Force. Value Health. 2016; 19(4):300-15. DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2016.04.004. View

Soekhai V, de Bekker-Grob E, Ellis A, Vass C . Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: Past, Present and Future. Pharmacoeconomics. 2018; 37(2):201-226. PMC: 6386055. DOI: 10.1007/s40273-018-0734-2. View

OConnor A . Validation of a decisional conflict scale. Med Decis Making. 1995; 15(1):25-30. DOI: 10.1177/0272989X9501500105. View

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

DiSantostefano R, Sutphin J, Hedrick J, Klein K, Mansfield C . Parent Preferences for Delaying Insulin Dependence in Children at Risk of Stage III Type 1 Diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2020; 22(8):584-593. PMC: 7406995. DOI: 10.1089/dia.2019.0444. View

Cleveland C, Patel V, Steinman S, Razdan R, Carr M . Relationship Between Parental Intolerance of Uncertainty and Decisional Conflict in Pediatric Otolaryngologic Surgery. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2020; 165(2):354-359. PMC: 8383871. DOI: 10.1177/0194599820973644. View

Deber R, Kraetschmer N, Irvine J . What role do patients wish to play in treatment decision making?. Arch Intern Med. 1996; 156(13):1414-20. View

Kenny P, Goodall S, Street D, Greene J . Choosing a Doctor: Does Presentation Format Affect the Way Consumers Use Health Care Performance Information?. Patient. 2017; 10(6):739-751. DOI: 10.1007/s40271-017-0245-9. View

Veldwijk J, Lambooij M, van Til J, Groothuis-Oudshoorn C, Smit H, de Wit G . Words or graphics to present a Discrete Choice Experiment: Does it matter?. Patient Educ Couns. 2015; 98(11):1376-84. DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2015.06.002. View

10.

Jonker M, Donkers B, de Bekker-Grob E, Stolk E . Effect of Level Overlap and Color Coding on Attribute Non-Attendance in Discrete Choice Experiments. Value Health. 2018; 21(7):767-771. DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2017.10.002. View

11.

Pecanac K, Brown R, Kremsreiter H . Decisional Conflict During Major Medical Treatment Decision-making: a Survey Study. J Gen Intern Med. 2020; 36(1):55-61. PMC: 7431116. DOI: 10.1007/s11606-020-06125-1. View

12.

Scheier M, Carver C . Dispositional optimism and physical well-being: the influence of generalized outcome expectancies on health. J Pers. 1987; 55(2):169-210. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.1987.tb00434.x. View

13.

Bruine de Bruin W, McNair S, Taylor A, Summers B, Strough J . "Thinking about numbers is not my idea of fun": need for cognition mediates age differences in numeracy performance. Med Decis Making. 2014; 35(1):22-6. DOI: 10.1177/0272989X14542485. View

14.

Forner D, Ungar G, Meier J, Hong P . Oral literacy in pediatric otolaryngology surgical consultations amongst parents with high levels of decisional conflict. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2020; 138:110269. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijporl.2020.110269. View

15.

Fagerlin A, Zikmund-Fisher B, Ubel P, Jankovic A, Derry H, Smith D . Measuring numeracy without a math test: development of the Subjective Numeracy Scale. Med Decis Making. 2007; 27(5):672-80. DOI: 10.1177/0272989X07304449. View

16.

Gwede C, Pow-Sang J, Seigne J, Heysek R, Helal M, Shade K . Treatment decision-making strategies and influences in patients with localized prostate carcinoma. Cancer. 2005; 104(7):1381-90. DOI: 10.1002/cncr.21330. View

17.

Orom H, Penner L, West B, Downs T, Rayford W, Underwood W . Personality predicts prostate cancer treatment decision-making difficulty and satisfaction. Psychooncology. 2008; 18(3):290-9. PMC: 3875290. DOI: 10.1002/pon.1385. View

18.

Scheier M, Carver C, Bridges M . Distinguishing optimism from neuroticism (and trait anxiety, self-mastery, and self-esteem): a reevaluation of the Life Orientation Test. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1994; 67(6):1063-78. DOI: 10.1037//0022-3514.67.6.1063. View

19.

Scheier M, Carver C . Optimism, coping, and health: assessment and implications of generalized outcome expectancies. Health Psychol. 1985; 4(3):219-47. DOI: 10.1037//0278-6133.4.3.219. View

20.

Russo S, Jongerius C, Faccio F, Pizzoli S, Pinto C, Veldwijk J . Understanding Patients' Preferences: A Systematic Review of Psychological Instruments Used in Patients' Preference and Decision Studies. Value Health. 2019; 22(4):491-501. DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2018.12.007. View