» Articles » PMID: 37061632

Adaptation of the WOMAC for Use in a Patient Preference Study

Overview
Date 2023 Apr 15
PMID 37061632
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Objectives: To adapt a patient-reported outcome (PRO) measure, the Western Ontario McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), into efficacy attributes for a discrete choice experiment (DCE) survey designed to quantify the relative importance of endpoints commonly used in knee osteoarthritis (KOA) trials.

Methods: The adaptation comprised four steps: (1) selecting domains of interest; (2) determining presentation and framing of selected attributes; (3) determining attribute levels; and (4) developing choice tasks. This process involved input from multiple stakeholders, including regulators, health preference researchers, and patients. Pretesting was conducted to evaluate if patients comprehended the adapted survey attributes and could make trade-offs among them.

Results: The WOMAC pain and function domains were selected for adaption to two efficacy attributes. Two versions of the discrete choice experiment (DCE) instrument were created to compare efficacy using (1) total domain scores and (2) item scores for "walking on a flat surface." Both attributes were presented as improvement from baseline scores by levels of 0%, 30%, 50%, and 100%. Twenty-six participants were interviewed in a pretest of the instrument (average age 60 years; 58% female; 62% had KOA for ≥ 5 years). The participants found both versions of attributes meaningful and relevant for treatment decision-making. They demonstrated willingness and ability to tradeoff improvements in pain and function separately, though many perceived them as inter-related.

Conclusions: This study adds to the growing literature regarding adapting PRO measures for patient preference studies. Such adaptation is important for designing a preference study that can incorporate a clinical trial's outcomes with PRO endpoints.

Citing Articles

What Next for the Science of Patient Preference? Interoperability, Standardization, and Transferability.

Marsh K, Gonzalez Sepulveda J, Berlin C, Levitan B, Boeri M, Groothuis-Oudshoorn C Patient. 2025; 18(2):101-108.

PMID: 39873903 DOI: 10.1007/s40271-025-00727-9.

References
1.
Ho M, Saha A, McCleary K, Levitan B, Christopher S, Zandlo K . A Framework for Incorporating Patient Preferences Regarding Benefits and Risks into Regulatory Assessment of Medical Technologies. Value Health. 2016; 19(6):746-750. DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2016.02.019. View

2.
Ho M, Gonzalez J, Lerner H, Neuland C, Whang J, McMurry-Heath M . Incorporating patient-preference evidence into regulatory decision making. Surg Endosc. 2015; 29(10):2984-93. DOI: 10.1007/s00464-014-4044-2. View

3.
Benz H, Saha A, Tarver M . Integrating the Voice of the Patient Into the Medical Device Regulatory Process Using Patient Preference Information. Value Health. 2020; 23(3):294-297. DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2019.12.005. View

4.
Soekhai V, Whichello C, Levitan B, Veldwijk J, Pinto C, Donkers B . Methods for exploring and eliciting patient preferences in the medical product lifecycle: a literature review. Drug Discov Today. 2019; 24(7):1324-1331. DOI: 10.1016/j.drudis.2019.05.001. View

5.
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