ArticleThe patient2019
General Population vs. Patient Preferences in Anticoagulant Therapy: A Discrete Choice Experiment.
Article in The patient, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Evolving Landscape of Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: A Systematic Review.PharmacoEconomics · 2025Pooled it
- Patient Preferences for Oral Anticoagulation Therapy in Atrial Fibrillation: A Systematic Literature Review.The patient · 2017Pooled it
- Do preferences differ based on respondent experience of a health issue and its treatment? A case study using a public health intervention.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2023Trial
- Exploring methodology for investigating Chinese coronary artery disease patient values and preferences: A methodological study protocol.Global health research and policy · 2026Article
- Patient Preferences in Anticoagulation Treatment: A Review of Discrete Choice Experiments.The patient · 2026Review
- Developing Tools for the Efficient Design of Health Preference Studies: Taxonomy of Attributes and Prototype of an Attribute Library.The patient · 2025Review
- Development of a disease-specific health utility score for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease from a discrete choice experiment patient preference study.International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2024Article
- Method for Calculating the Simultaneous Maximum Acceptable Risk Threshold (SMART) from Discrete-Choice Experiment Benefit-Risk Studies.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2023Article
- Patient Preference Studies for Advanced Prostate Cancer Treatment Along the Medical Product Life Cycle: Systematic Literature Review.Patient preference and adherence · 2022Review
- Patient Preferences of Low-Dose Aspirin for Cardiovascular Disease and Colorectal Cancer Prevention in Italy: A Latent Class Analysis.The patient · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesPreference weights derived from general population samples are often used for therapeutic decision making. In contrast, patients with cardiovascular disease may have different preferences concerning the benefits and risks of anticoagulant therapy. Using a discrete choice experiment, we compared preferences for anticoagulant treatment outcomes between the general population and patients with cardiovascular disease.
methodsA sample of the general US population and a sample of patients with cardiovascular disease were selected from online panels. We used a discrete choice experiment questionnaire to elicit preferences in both populations concerning treatment benefits and risks. Seven attributes described hypothetical treatments: non-fatal stroke, non-fatal myocardial infarction, cardiovascular death, minor bleeding, major bleeding, fatal bleeding, and the need for monitoring. We measured preference weights and maximum acceptable risks in both populations.
resultsA total of 352 individuals from the general population and 341 patients completed the questionnaire. After propensity score matching, 284 from each group were included in the analysis. On average, the general population members valued a 1% increased risk of fatal bleeding as being the same as a 4.2% increase in a non-fatal myocardial infarction, a 2.8% increase in cardiovascular death, or a 14.1% increase in minor bleeding. Patients, in contrast, perceived a 1% increased risk of fatal bleeding as being the same as a 2.0% increase in a non-fatal myocardial infarction, a 3.2% increase in cardiovascular death, and a 16.7% increase in minor bleeding.
conclusionsThe general population and patients with cardiovascular disease had slightly different preferences for treatment outcomes. The differences can potentially influence estimated benefits and risks and patient-centered treatment decisions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.