Assessing patient preferences in heart failure using conjoint methodology

Figures & data

Table 1 Attributes and levels of the conjoint design

Attributes	Levels
Dyspnea
1	Never dyspnea, except on increased physical exertion
2	Dyspnea during exertion
3	Dyspnea at walking pace
4	Dyspnea during slightest physical exertion
5	Dyspnea at rest
Exhaustion during mental activities*
1	No exhaustion
2	Mild exhaustion
3	Strong exhaustion
4	Permanent exhaustion
Physical capacity in daily activities
1	Can freely organize my day
2	Can freely organize most of my day
3	Can organize my day only partly
4	Cannot organize my day at all
Autonomy
1	No assistance necessary
2	Sometimes assistance necessary
3	Frequent assistance necessary
4	Rely on permanent assistance
Fear due to heart failure
1	No fear
2	Have fear sometimes
3	Have fear often
4	Permanent fear/panic

Note:

* For example, active participation in discussions, reading, using computer, and watching TV.

Figure 1 Choice task example.

Abbreviation: HF, heart failure.

Table 2 Patient’s baseline characteristics

Variable	Total patients, N=300 (%)	Patients having experienced a hospitalization within the last 3 months, n=100 (%)	Patients having experienced at least one hospitalization (>3 months), n=100 (%)	Stable chronic patients (never hospitalized), n=100 (%)
Sex
Male	74	75	73	75
Female	26	25	27	25
Age (years)
60–69	33	31	38	31
70–75	33	50*	23*	27
Over 75	33	19*	39	42*
NYHA class
II	53	30*	51	77*
III	45	64*	48	23*
IV	2	6*	1	0
School education (highest level)
Higher education entrance qualification not further specified (“Hochschulreife”)	8	5	9	9
Technical college entrance qualification (“Fachhochschulreife”)	7	7	6	8
University entrance qualification (“Abitur”)	17	13	19	20
General certificate of secondary education (“Realschulabschluss”)	28	35	26	24
Certificate of basic secondary education (“Hauptschulabschluss”)	40	40	40	39
Employment status
Employed	6	1*	11*	6
Unemployed	5	9	3	4
Retired	89	90	86	90
Regional distribution
Northern Germany	16	12	18	19
Southern Germany	23	23	25	21
Western Germany	40	39	39	41
Eastern Germany	21	26	18	19

Note:

* P<0.05 (subgroup vs total sample).

Abbreviation: NYHA, New York Heart Association.

Table 3 EQ-5D™ utilities and VAS scores: differences between post-acute and chronic patients (with and without hospitalization)

Total sample and subgroups	EQ-5D index	VAS score
Total patients (n=300)	0.39	49.5
Patients having experienced a hospitalization within the last 3 months (n=100)	0.31	43.7
P-value	<0.05	<0.05
Patients having experienced at least one hospitalization (>3 months) (n=100)	0.36	52.0
P-value	ns	ns
Stable chronic patients (never hospitalized) (n=100)	0.51	52.9
P-value	<0.05	<0.05

Note: P-values calculated vs total sample.

Abbreviations: EQ-5D, EuroQol health questionnaire; VAS, visual analog scale; ns, non significant.

Table 4 Relative importance of HF attributes (obtained from the conjoint analysis)

Attribute	Relative importance (%)
Dyspnea	44
Physical capacity in daily activities	18
Exhaustion during mental activities	13
Fear due to HF	13
Autonomy	12

Note: Total number of patients, N=300.

Abbreviation: HF, heart failure.

Figure 2 Effect of attribute levels on health state preference: part-worth utilities.