Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38240281›Full record

ArticleMedical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making2024

Can the General Public Be a Proxy for an "At-Risk" Group in a Patient Preference Study? A Disease Prevention Example in Rheumatoid Arthritis.

R L DiSantostefano, G Simons, M Englbrecht, Jennifer H Humphreys, Ian N Bruce, K Schölin Bywall, C Radawski, K Raza, M Falahee, J Veldwijk

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact, top 99% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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

10 authors at 8 institutions in 5 countries.

R L DiSantostefanoJanssen Research & Development, Titusville, NJ, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-5324-6835
G SimonsRheumatology Research Group, Institute of Inflammation and Ageing, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
M Englbrechtfreelance healthcare data scientist, Eckental, Germany.
Jennifer H HumphreysCentre for Epidemiology Versus Arthritis, Centre for Musculoskeletal Research, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-2497-4080
Ian N BruceCentre for Epidemiology Versus Arthritis, Centre for Musculoskeletal Research, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
K Schölin BywallMälardalen University, Vasteras, Västmanland, SE.ORCID 0000-0002-5865-5590
C RadawskiEli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN, USA.
K RazaRheumatology Research Group, Institute of Inflammation and Ageing, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
M FalaheeRheumatology Research Group, Institute of Inflammation and Ageing, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-5928-486X
J VeldwijkSchool of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-4822-5068
Manchester Academic Health Science Centre · GBUniversity of Birmingham · GBEli Lilly (United States) · USFriedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg · DEJanssen (United States) · USMälardalen University · SESandwell & West Birmingham Hospitals NHS Trust · GBUniversity Medical Center Utrecht · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWhen selecting samples for patient preference studies, it may be difficult or impractical to recruit participants who are eligible for a particular treatment decision. However, a general public sample may not be an appropriate proxy.

objectiveThis study compares preferences for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) preventive treatments between members of the general public and first-degree relatives (FDRs) of confirmed RA patients to assess whether a sample of the general public can be used as a proxy for FDRs.

methodsParticipants were asked to imagine they were experiencing arthralgia and had screening tests indicating a 60% chance of developing RA within 2 yrs. Using a discrete choice experiment, participants were offered a series of choices between no treatment and 2 unlabeled hypothetical treatments to reduce the risk of RA. To assess data quality, time to complete survey sections and comprehension questions were assessed. A random parameter logit model was used to obtain attribute-level estimates, which were used to calculate relative importance, maximum acceptable risk (MAR), and market shares of hypothetical preventive treatments.

resultsThe FDR sample (

conclusionIn the context of RA prevention, the general public (average risk) may be a reasonable proxy for a more at-risk sample (FDRs) for overall relative importance ranking but not weights. The rationale for a proxy sample should be clearly justified. HIGHLIGHTS: Participants from the general public were compared to first-degree relatives on their preferences for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) preventive treatments using a discrete choice experiment.Preferences were similar between groups in terms of the most important and least important attributes of preventive treatments, with effectiveness being the most important attribute. However, relative weights differed.Attention to the survey and predicted market shares of hypothetical RA preventive treatments differed between the general public and first-degree relatives.The general public may be a reasonable proxy for an at-risk group for patient preferences ranks but not weights in the disease prevention context; however, care should be taken in sample selection for patient preference studies when choosing nonpatients.

Indexed as

Arthritis, RheumatoidPatient PreferenceChoice BehaviorHumansLogistic ModelsRisk FactorsSurveys and Questionnairespatient preferencesproxy respondentsrecruitmentrheumatoid arthritissamplingstated preferences

Identifiers

PMID38240281
PMCPMC10865770
OpenAlexW4391034419

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.