ArticlePatient preference and adherence2020
Using a Discrete-Choice Experiment in a Decision Aid to Nudge Patients Towards Value-Concordant Treatment Choices in Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Proof-of-Concept Study.
Article in Patient preference and adherence, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 24 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Evolving Landscape of Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: A Systematic Review.PharmacoEconomics · 2025Pooled it
- Clarifying Values: An Updated and Expanded Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2021Pooled it
- Trial
- Embedding a Choice Experiment in an Online Decision Aid or Tool: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Practical applications of methods to incorporate patient preferences into medical decision models: a scoping review.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2025Article
- Development of Worksheets for Immunomodulator Shared Decision-Making to Facilitate Patient-Clinician Communication: A Quality Improvement Project Employing Design Thinking Principles.Journal of clinical rheumatology : practical reports on rheumatic & musculoskeletal diseases · 2024Article
- Risk-Adapted Breast Screening for Women at Low Predicted Risk of Breast Cancer: An Online Discrete Choice Experiment.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2024Article
- Article
- Article
- Adaptation of a Shared Decision-Making Tool for Early Rheumatoid Arthritis Treatment Decisions with Indigenous Patients.The patient · 2022Article
- Development of an Implementation Strategy for Patient Decision Aids in Rheumatoid Arthritis Through Application of the Behavior Change Wheel.ACR open rheumatology · 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
9 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate, in a proof-of-concept study, a decision aid that incorporates hypothetical choices in the form of a discrete-choice experiment (DCE), to help patients with early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) understand their values and nudge them towards a value-centric decision between methotrexate and triple therapy (a combination of methotrexate, sulphasalazine and hydroxychloroquine). PATIENTS AND
methodsIn the decision aid, patients completed a series of 6 DCE choice tasks. Based on the patient's pattern of responses, we calculated his/her probability of choosing each treatment, using data from a prior DCE. Following pilot testing, we conducted a cross-sectional study to determine the agreement between the predicted and final stated preference, as a measure of value concordance. Secondary outcomes including time to completion and usability were also evaluated.
resultsPilot testing was completed with 10 patients and adjustments were made. We then recruited 29 patients to complete the survey: median age 57, 55% female. The patients were all taking treatment and had well-controlled disease. The predicted treatment agreed with the final treatment chosen by the patient 21/29 times (72%), similar to the expected agreement from the mean of the predicted probabilities (68%). Triple therapy was the predicted treatment 24/29 times (83%) and chosen 20/29 (69%) times. Half of the patients (51%) agreed that completing the choice questions helped them to understand their preferences (38% neutral, 10% disagreed). The tool took an average of 15 minutes to complete, and median usability scores were 55 (system usability scale) indicating "OK" usability.
conclusionUsing a DCE as a value-clarification task within a decision aid is feasible, with promising potential to help nudge patients towards a value-centric decision. Usability testing suggests further modifications are needed prior to implementation, perhaps by having the DCE exercises as an "add-on" to a simpler decision aid.
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.