Preferences of patients with chronic low back pain about nonsurgical treatments: Results of a discrete choice experiment

Unlocking Patient Voices: Advancing Physical Therapist Practice With Discrete Choice Experiments

As health care moves away from volume-based to value-based delivery, the role of the patient in determining value in health care is now paramount. Thus, health care should be aligned with what matters most to patients. Ascertaining patient preferences is therefore critical if we are to provide patients with care that is meaningful to them. However, preferences are difficult to measure and traditional methods of preference measurement in physical therapy face challenges when attempting to measure such. This perspective makes a case for greater use of the discrete choice experiment (DCE) in physical therapy as a research method to measure patient preferences. The DCE is a research method used to elicit preferences for services or goods. This article addresses the importance of eliciting patient preferences as part of person-centered care in the value-based space, the challenges faced in preference measurement in physical therapy, and how the DCE can alleviate some of those challenges. It also provides examples of the DCE in health care and suggests ways in which it can be effectively used in physical therapist practice to improve the delivery of meaningful rehabilitation services to patients. Implementing greater use of the DCE in physical therapy can improve person-centered physical therapist service delivery and inform policy development that creates cost-effective care which is meaningful to patients. It can further help to highlight the value of physical therapy to population health, and to policy makers as health care moves toward more value-based models.

The smallest worthwhile effect on pain intensity of exercise therapy for people with chronic low back pain: a discrete choice experiment study

OBJECTIVE: To identify the smallest worthwhile effect (SWE) of exercise therapy for people with non-specific chronic low back pain (CLBP). DESIGN: Discrete choice experiment. METHODS: The SWE was estimated as the lowest reduction in pain that participants would consider exercising worthwhile, compared to not exercising i.e., effects due to natural history and other components (e.g., regression to the mean). We recruited English-speaking adults in Australia with non-specific CLBP to our online survey via email obtained from a registry of previous participants and advertisements on social media. We used discrete choice experiment to estimate the SWE of exercise compared to no exercise for pain intensity. We analysed the discrete choice experiment using a mixed logit model, and mitigated hypothetical bias through certainty calibration, with sensitivity analyses performed with different certainty calibration thresholds. RESULTS: Two-hundred and thirteen participants completed the survey. The mean age (±SD) was 50.7±16.5, median (IQR) pain duration 10 years (5-20), and mean pain intensity (±SD) was 5.8±2.3 on a 0-10 numerical rating scale. For people with CLBP the SWE of exercise was a between-group reduction in pain of 20%, compared to no exercise. In the sensitivity analyses, the SWE varied with different levels of certainty calibration; from 0% without certainty calibration to 60% with more extreme certainty calibration. CONCLUSION: This patient-informed threshold of clinical importance could guide the interpretation of findings from randomised trials and meta-analyses of exercise therapy compared to no exercise.

Patient versus physician preferences for lipid-lowering drug therapy: A discrete choice experiment

BACKGROUND

The emergence of proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitors offered dyslipidemia patients an alternative to statins for lipid-lowering treatment. Understanding patient and physician preferences for lipid-lowering drugs may promote shared decision-making and improve treatment outcomes.

METHODS

This study utilized an online discrete choice experiment (DCE) to assess the relative importance (RI) of six attributes related to lipid-lowering drugs, including frequency of administration, mode of administration, reduction of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) level, risk of myopathy, risk of liver damage, and out-of-pocket monthly cost. Respondents were recruited from dyslipidemia patients and cardiovascular physicians in China. A mixed logit model and latent class analysis were employed to estimate the preference coefficient, marginal willingness to pay (mWTP), and RI of attributes. Ethical approval has been obtained for this study.

RESULTS

A total of 708 patients and 507 physicians participated in the survey. Patients prioritized the 'risk of liver damage' (RI = 23.6%) with 'mode of administration' (RI = 19.2%) and 'frequency of administration' (RI = 18.8%) following closely. Contrarily, physicians prioritized the 'reduction of LDL-C level' (RI = 33.5%), followed by 'risk of liver damage' (RI = 26.0%) and 'risk of myopathy' (RI = 16.1%). Patients placed a higher value on 'frequency of administration' (p < .001) and 'mode of administration' (p < .001) compared to physicians, while physicians valued 'reduction of LDL-C level' (p < .001) and 'risk of myopathy' (p = .012) more than patients. Physicians exhibited higher mWTP than patients for all attributes except frequency and mode of administration. The LCA revealed three distinct patient classes: focus on oral administration, focus on hepatic safety and frequency and focus on hepatic safety and cost. Likewise, three physician classes were identified: frequency-insensitive, efficacy-focused and safety-focused.

CONCLUSIONS

The preferences for lipid-lowering drug therapy differed between patients and physicians in China. Physicians should take into account patients' preferences and provide personalized treatment when they formulate lipid-lowering treatment plans.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

Patients participated in the questionnaire design process. They engaged in a focus group discussion to determine attributes and levels and also participated in a pilot survey to assess the comprehensibility of the questionnaires. Additionally, patients were involved in the DCE survey to express their preferences. The findings of patient preference for lipid-lowering drug therapy will promote shared decision-making and optimize the treatment regimen.

CAPER: patient preferences to inform nonsurgical treatment of chronic low back pain: a discrete-choice experiment

OBJECTIVE

We developed and used a discrete-choice measure to study patient preferences with regard to the risks and benefits of nonsurgical treatments when they are making treatment selections for chronic low back pain.

METHODS

"CAPER TREATMENT" (Leslie Wilson) was developed with standard choice-based conjoint procedures (discrete-choice methodology that mimics an individual's decision-making process). After expert input and pilot testing, our final measure had 7 attributes (chance of pain relief, duration of relief, physical activity changes, treatment method, treatment type, treatment time burden, and risks of treatment) with 3-4 levels each. Using Sawtooth software (Sawtooth Software, Inc., Provo, UT, USA), we created a random, full-profile, balanced-overlap experimental design. Respondents (n = 211) were recruited via an emailed online link and completed 14 choice-based conjoint choice pairs; 2 fixed questions; and demographic, clinical, and quality-of-life questions. Analysis was performed with random-parameters multinomial logit with 1000 Halton draws.

RESULTS

Patients cared most about the chance of pain relief, followed closely by improving physical activity, even more than duration of pain relief. There was comparatively less concern about time commitment and risks. Gender and socioeconomic status influenced preferences, especially with relation to strength of expectations for outcomes. Patients experiencing a low level of pain (Pain, Enjoyment, and General Activity Scale [PEG], question 1, numeric rating scale score<4) had a stronger desire for maximally improved physical activity, whereas those in a high level of pain (PEG, question 1, numeric rating scale score>6) preferred both maximum and more limited activity. Highly disabled patients (Oswestry Disability Index score>40) demonstrated distinctly different preferences, placing more weight on achieving pain control and less on improving physical activity.

CONCLUSIONS

Individuals with chronic low back pain were willing to trade risks and inconveniences for better pain control and physical activity. Additionally, different preference phenotypes exist, which suggests a need for clinicians to target treatments to particular patients.

Risk factors analysis and risk prediction model construction of non-specific low back pain: an ambidirectional cohort study

PURPOSE

Non-specific low back pain (NLBP) is a common clinical condition that affects approximately 60-80% of adults worldwide. However, there is currently a lack of scientific prediction and evaluation systems in clinical practice. The purpose of this study was to analyze the risk factors of NLBP and construct a risk prediction model.

METHODS

We collected baseline data from 707 patients who met the inclusion criteria and were treated at the Sixth Hospital of Ningbo from December 2020 to December 2022. Logistic regression and LASSO regression were used to screen independent risk factors that influence the onset of NLBP and to construct a risk prediction model. The sensitivity and specificity of the model were evaluated by tenfold cross-validation, and internal validation was performed in the validation set.

RESULTS

Age, gender, BMI, education level, marital status, exercise frequency, history of low back pain, labor intensity, working posture, exposure to vibration sources, and psychological status were found to be significantly associated with the onset of NLBP. Using these 11 predictive factors, a nomogram was constructed, and the area under the ROC curve of the training set was 0.835 (95% CI 0.756-0.914), with a sensitivity of 0.771 and a specificity of 0.800. The area under the ROC curve of the validation set was 0.762 (95% CI 0.665-0.858), with a sensitivity of 0.800 and a specificity of 0.600, indicating that the predictive value of the model for the diagnosis of NLBP was high. In addition, the calibration curve showed a high degree of consistency between the predicted and actual survival probabilities.

CONCLUSION

We have developed a preliminary predictive model for NLBP and constructed a nomogram to predict the onset of NLBP. The model demonstrated good performance and may be useful for the prevention and treatment of NLBP in clinical practice.