ArticleJMIR public health and surveillance2023
Quantifying Benefit-Risk Trade-Offs Toward Prophylactic Treatment Among Adult Patients With Hemophilia A in China: Discrete Choice Experiment Study.
Article in JMIR public health and surveillance, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The Evolving Landscape of Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: A Systematic Review.PharmacoEconomics · 2025Pooled it
- Physician preferences for prescribing Chinese patent medicines during pregnancy: a discrete choice experiment.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Article
- How policymakers value end-of-life treatments for rare and common diseases in China: evidence from a contingent valuation study.Global health research and policy · 2025Article
- The Need for a Bleed Type-Specific Annual Bleeding Rate in Hemophilia Studies.JMIR public health and surveillance · 2024Article
- Authors' Reply: "The Need for a Bleed Type-Specific Annual Bleeding Rate in Hemophilia Studies".JMIR public health and surveillance · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHemophilia A is a chronic condition that requires meticulous treatment and management. Patient preferences for prophylactic treatment can substantially influence adherence, outcomes, and quality of life, yet these preferences remain underexplored, particularly in China.
objectiveThis study aimed to investigate the preferences for prophylactic treatment among Chinese adult patients with hemophilia A without inhibitors, considering clinical effectiveness, side effects, dosing mode, and dosing frequency.
methodsA discrete choice experiment was used to elicit patient preferences for prophylactic treatment of hemophilia. The study was conducted across 7 provinces in China with socioeconomic and geographical diversity. Subgroup analysis was performed according to education level, geographic location, and treatment type, alongside the exploration of benefit-risk trade-offs.
resultsA total of 113 patients completed the discrete choice experiment questionnaire, and we included 102 responses for analysis based on predetermined exclusion criteria. The study found that patients prioritized reducing annual bleeding times and avoiding the risk of developing inhibitors over treatment process attributes. Subgroup analysis revealed that lower-educated patients and those from rural areas attached more importance to the dosing mode, likely due to barriers to self-administration. Patients demonstrated a clear understanding of benefit-risk trade-offs, exhibiting a willingness to accept an increased risk of developing inhibitors for improved clinical outcomes.
conclusionsThis study provides valuable insights into the preferences of patients with hemophilia A for prophylactic treatment in China. Understanding these preferences can enhance shared decision-making between patients and clinicians, fostering personalized prophylactic treatment plans that may optimize adherence and improve clinical outcomes.
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.