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

References

• Hiligsmann M, Pinto D, Dennison E, et al. Patients’ preferences for osteoarthritis treatment: the value of stated-preference studies. Aging Clin Exp Res. 2019;31(1):1–3. doi:10.1007/s40520-018-1098-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brembo EA, Kapstad H, Eide T, Månsson 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(1):88. doi:10.1186/s12913-016-1342-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Al-Omari B. The shared decision for osteoarthritis treatments. OPROJ. 2019;5(5). doi:10.31031/OPROJ.2019.05.000625
   Google Scholar
• Onishi K, Utturkar A, Chang E, Panush R, Hata J, Perret-Karimi D. Osteoarthritis: a critical review. Crit Rev Phys Rehabil Med. 2012;24(3–4):251–264. doi:10.1615/CritRevPhysRehabilMed.2013007630
   Google Scholar
• Angelis A, Kanavos P. Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) for evaluating new medicines in health technology assessment and beyond: the advance value framework. Soc Sci Med. 2017;188:137–156. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2017.06.024
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Committee on Improving the Quality of Cancer Care: Addressing the Challenges of an Aging Population, Board on Health Care Services, Institute of Medicine. Delivering High-Quality Cancer Care: Charting a New Course for a System in Crisis. Levit L, Balogh E, Nass S, Ganz PA, eds. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2013. doi:10.17226/18359
   Google Scholar
• Hauber AB, Arden NK, Mohamed AF, et al. A discrete-choice experiment of United Kingdom patients’ willingness to risk adverse events for improved function and pain control in osteoarthritis. Osteoarthr Cartil. 2013;21(2):289–297. doi:10.1016/j.joca.2012.11.007
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Al-Omari B. Patient preferences for the pharmacological treatment of osteoarthritis using adaptive choice-based conjoint (ACBC) analysis: a pilot study. Eur J Pers Cent Healthc. 2017;5(2):220. doi:10.5750/ejpch.v5i2.1293
   Google Scholar
• Fraenkel L, Suter L, Cunningham CE, Hawker G. Understanding preferences for disease-modifying drugs in osteoarthritis. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2014;66(8):1186–1192. doi:10.1002/acr.22280
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Byun J-H, Kwon S-H, Lee J-E, Cheon J-E, Jang E-J, Lee E-K. Comparison of benefit-risk preferences of patients and physicians regarding cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors using discrete choice experiments. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2016;10:641–650. doi:10.2147/PPA.S98228
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laba T-L, Brien J, Fransen M, Jan S. Patient preferences for adherence to treatment for osteoarthritis: the MEdication Decisions in Osteoarthritis Study (MEDOS). BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2013;14(1):160. doi:10.1186/1471-2474-14-160
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ratcliffe J. Patients‘ preferences for characteristics associated with treatments for osteoarthritis. Rheumatology. 2003;43(3):337–345. doi:10.1093/rheumatology/keh038
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Turk D, Boeri M, Abraham L, et al. Patient preferences for osteoarthritis pain and chronic low back pain treatments in the United States: a discrete-choice experiment. Osteoarthr Cartil. 2020;28(9):1202–1213. doi:10.1016/j.joca.2020.06.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fraenkel L, Bogardus ST, Concato J, Wittink DR. Treatment options in knee osteoarthritis: the patient’s perspective. Arch Intern Med. 2004;164(12):1299–1304. doi:10.1001/archinte.164.12.1299
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fraenkel L, Wittink DR, Concato J, Fried T. Informed choice and the widespread use of antiinflammatory drugs. Arthritis Rheum. 2004;51(2):210–214. doi:10.1002/art.20247
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fraenkel L, Wittink DR, Concato J, Fried T. Are preferences for cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors influenced by the certainty effect? J Rheumatol. 2004;31(3):591–593.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Byrne MM, Souchek J, Richardson M, Suarez-Almazor M. Racial/ethnic differences in preferences for total knee replacement surgery. J Clin Epidemiol. 2006;59(10):1078–1086. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.01.010
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mühlbacher AC, Junker U, Juhnke C, et al. Chronic pain patients’ treatment preferences: a discrete-choice experiment. Eur J Health Econ. 2015;16(6):613–628. doi:10.1007/s10198-014-0614-4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Soekhai V, Whichello C, Levitan B, et al. 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
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Soekhai V, de Bekker-grob EW, Ellis AR, Vass CM. Discrete choice experiments in health economics: past, present and future. Pharmacoeconomics. 2019;37(2):201–226. doi:10.1007/s40273-018-0734-2
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clark MD, Determann D, Petrou S, Moro D, de Bekker-grob EW. Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature. Pharmacoeconomics. 2013;14(1):883–902. doi:10.1186/1471-2474-14-160
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ryan M, Scott DA, Reeves C, et al. Eliciting public preferences for healthcare: a systematic review of techniques. Health Technol Assess. 2001;5(5):1–186. doi:10.3310/hta5050
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Rao VR. Conjoint Analysis. In: Sheth J, Malhotra N, editors. Wiley International Encyclopedia of Marketing. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2010. doi:10.1002/9781444316568.wiem02019.
   Google Scholar
• Wong DW, Chan F, Da Silva Cardoso E, Lam CS, Miller SM. Rehabilitation counseling students’ attitudes toward people with disabilities in three social contexts. Rehabil Couns Bull. 2004;47(4):194–204. doi:10.1177/00343552040470040101
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lamiraud K, Geoffard P-Y. Therapeutic non-adherence: a rational behavior revealing patient preferences? Health Econ. 2007;16(11):1185–1204. doi:10.1002/hec.1214
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lancsar E, Louviere J. Conducting discrete choice experiments to inform healthcare decision making: a user’s guide. Pharmacoeconomics. 2008;26(8):661–677. doi:10.2165/00019053-200826080-00004
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ryan M, Gerard K. Using discrete choice experiments to value health care programmes: current practice and future research reflections. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2003;2(1):55–64.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Al-Omari B, Sim J, Croft P, Frisher M. Generating individual patient preferences for the treatment of osteoarthritis using Adaptive Choice-Based Conjoint (ACBC) analysis. Rheumatol Ther. 2017;4(1):167–182. doi:10.1007/s40744-017-0056-4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Louviere JJ, Hensher DA, Swait JD, Adamowicz W. Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2000. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511753831
   Google Scholar
• Reed Johnson F, Lancsar E, Marshall D, et al. 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
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jaynes J, Wong W-K, Xu H. Using blocked fractional factorial designs to construct discrete choice experiments for healthcare studies. Stat Med. 2016;35(15):2543–2560. doi:10.1002/sim.6882
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jervis SM, Ennis JM, Drake MA. A comparison of adaptive choice-based conjoint and choice-based conjoint to determine key choice attributes of sour cream with limited sample size. J Sens Stud. 2012;27(6):451–462. doi:10.1111/joss.12009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ACBC technical paper; 2014. Available from: https://www.sawtoothsoftware.com/support/technical-papers/adaptive-cbc-papers/acbc-technical-paper-2009. Accessed November 7, 2020.
   Google Scholar
• Fraenkel L, Fried T. If you want patients with knee Osteoarthritis (OA) to exercise: tell them about NSAIDS. Patient. 2008;1(1):21–26.
   Google Scholar
• A new approach to adaptive CBC; 2007. Available from: https://sawtoothsoftware.com/resources/technical-papers/a-new-approach-to-adaptive-cbc. Accessed November 7, 2020.
   Google Scholar
• Bridges JFP, Hauber AB, Marshall D, et al. Conjoint analysis applications in health–a checklist: a report of the ISPOR good research practices for conjoint analysis task force. Value Health. 2011;14(4):403–413. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2010.11.013
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Al-Omari B, Sim J, Croft P, Frisher M. Patient preferences for the pharmacological treatment of osteoarthritis: a feasibility study using adaptive choice-based conjoint analysis (ACBCA). Eur J Pers Cent Healthc. 2015;3(2):253. doi:10.5750/ejpch.v3i2.975
   Google Scholar
• About us - healthwatch newcastle. Available from: https://www.healthwatchnewcastle.org.uk/about-us/. Accessed November 7, 2020..
   Google Scholar
• Health and social care act; 2012. Available from: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/7/contents/enacted. Accessed November 7, 2020.
   Google Scholar
• Formulating attributes and levels in conjoint analysis; 2002. Available from: https://sawtoothsoftware.com/resources/technical-papers/formulating-attributes-and-levels-in-conjoint-analysis. Accessed November 11, 2020.
   Google Scholar
• Overview | osteoarthritis: care and management | guidance | NICE. Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg177. Accessed November 7, 2020.
   Google Scholar
• Al-Omari B, Hill B. Nursing people with osteoarthritis. Br J Nurs. 2020;29(18):1060–1063. doi:10.12968/bjon.2020.29.18.1060
   Google Scholar
• Lighthouse studio help. Available from: https://sawtoothsoftware.com/help/lighthouse-studio/manual/index.html?checklistpriortofielding.html. Accessed November 7, 2020.
   Google Scholar
• Lenk PJ, DeSarbo WS, Green PE, Young MR. Hierarchical bayes conjoint analysis: recovery of partworth heterogeneity from reduced experimental designs. Marketing Sci. 1996;15(2):173–191. doi:10.1287/mksc.15.2.173
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Orme BK. Getting Started with Conjoint Analysis: Strategies for Product Design and Pricing Research. 2nd ed. Research Publishers, LLC; 2009: 228.
   Google Scholar
• Cunningham CE, Deal K, Chen Y. Adaptive choice-based conjoint analysis: a new patient-centered approach to the assessment of health service preferences. Patient. 2010;3(4):257–273. doi:10.2165/11537870-000000000-00000
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Steiner M, Meißner M. A user’s guide to the galaxy of conjoint analysis and compositional preference measurement. MAR. 2018;40(2):3–25. doi:10.15358/0344-1369-2018-2-3
   Google Scholar
• NHS. Am I entitled to free prescriptions? Available from: https://www.nhs.uk/using-the-nhs/help-with-health-costs/get-help-with-prescription-costs/. Accessed November 22, 2020.
   Google Scholar
• Kwon W, Noh M. The influence of prior experience and age on mature consumers’ perceptions and intentions of internet apparel shopping. J Fash Marketing Manage. 2010;14(3):335–349. doi:10.1108/13612021011061825
   Google Scholar
• Brown MT, Bussell JK. Medication adherence: WHO cares? Mayo Clin Proc. 2011;86(4):304–314. doi:10.4065/mcp.2010.0575
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang J, Xie Z, Zhang N, Zhong J. Chapter 13 - Nanosuspension drug delivery system: preparation, characterization, postproduction processing, dosage form, and application. In: Ecaterina Andronescu, Alexandru Mihai Grumezescu, editors. In Micro and Nano Technologies, Nanostructures for Drug Delivery. Elsevier. 2017:413–443. doi:10.1016/B978-0-323-46143-6.00013-0
   Google Scholar
• Which conjoint method should I use? 2013. Available from: https://sawtoothsoftware.com/resources/technical-papers/which-conjoint-method-should-i-use. Accessed November 7, 2020.
   Google Scholar