Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32248434›Full record

ArticleClinical rheumatology2020

Preferences for treatments to prevent rheumatoid arthritis in Canada and the influence of shared decision-making.

Mark Harrison, Nick Bansback, Magda Aguiar, Cheryl Koehn, Kam Shojania, Axel Finckh, Marie Hudson

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical rheumatology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.0field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Mark HarrisonFaculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada. mark.harrison@ubc.ca.
Nick BansbackCentre for Health Evaluation and Outcome Sciences (CHEOS), St. Paul's Hospital, Vancouver, Canada.
Magda AguiarFaculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.
Cheryl KoehnArthritis Consumer Experts/JointHealth, Vancouver, Canada.
Kam ShojaniaArthritis Research Canada, Richmond, Canada.
Axel FinckhDivision of Rheumatology, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.
Marie HudsonDivision of Rheumatology, and Department of Medicine, Jewish General Hospital and Lady Davis Institute, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada.
University of British Columbia · CAMcGill University · CAResearch Canada · CAUniversity of Geneva · CH

Funding

Canadian Initiative for Outcomes in Rheumatology Care 2015Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research 16813The Arthritis Society YIS-16-104
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo elicit and compare preferences of patients and first-degree relatives and rheumatologists for preventive treatments for rheumatoid arthritis, understand the influence of shared decision-making, and predict the probability of uptake of the preventive treatments currently being studied.

methodsAn online discrete choice experiment was completed by patients and their first-degree relatives and rheumatologists. Results were analysed using mixed logit model to estimate preferences for the key features of treatments. Preferences for features of treatments were used to predict the probability of uptake of seven preventive treatment options.

resultsA total of 108 potential recipients (78 patients and 30 of their first-degree relatives) and 39 rheumatologists completed the survey. Preferences of patients/first-degree relatives and rheumatologists were similar (shared decision-making was most important, followed by the risk of side effects and potential benefit), but subtle differences existed; rheumatologists placed greater importance on certainty in evidence than patients/first-degree relatives, who felt that how a treatment was taken was more important. Predicted uptake suggested that 38% (95% CI 19%, 58%) of patients/first-degree relatives would not take a preventive treatment, compared with 12% (95% CI - 4%, 27%) of rheumatologists. A consistent finding across all groups was a preference for non-biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs.

conclusionOnly relatively safe options for preventive treatment are likely to be acceptable to at-risk populations. This study of preventive treatments highlights that the preferences of physicians and recipients of treatment should take a central role in the design of clinical studies as well as in decisions to initiate treatments. Key Points • This paper is the first to compare preferences for preventive treatments between rheumatologists and patients and at-risk individuals. • The results of this study indicate that patients and at-risk individuals, as well as rheumatologists, are likely to prefer the safest options as preventive treatment, even if the potential benefit of these is lower. • Although preferences of patients and at-risk individuals are similar to those of rheumatologists, the choice of preventive treatment may differ between groups; this is important as shared decision-making was a critical factor in treatment decision-making. • Preferences of physicians and recipients of treatment should take a central role in the design of clinical studies as well as in decisions to initiate treatments.

Indexed as

Antirheumatic AgentsArthritis, RheumatoidCanadaChoice BehaviorHumansPatient PreferenceRheumatologistsAntirheumatic AgentsBiologicsDiscrete choice experimentDMARDsHealth policyPatient preferencesPreventionRheumatoid arthritis

Identifiers

PMID32248434
OpenAlexW3014397681

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.