Evaluating patient values and preferences for thromboprophylaxis decision making during pregnancy: a study protocol

Preferences of pregnant women for postpartum thromboprophylaxis: the bicentric PREFER-PostPartum study

BACKGROUND

Clinical guidelines for postpartum thromboprophylaxis differ due to its uncertain effect and varying preferences of experts. Women's preferences for postpartum thromboprophylaxis are unknown, although they may inform practices and future research.

OBJECTIVES

Our aim was to elicit the pregnant women's preferences for postpartum thromboprophylaxis according to different risks of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and bleeding.

METHODS

In 2 Swiss and French maternity hospitals, we conducted structured interviews of pregnant or postpartum women. Participants were instructed on pulmonary embolism, deep vein thrombosis, postpartum hemorrhage, and subcutaneous injections of low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH). First, we randomized women to either standard gamble or time trade-off (2 different validated methods) to estimate the utilities (quality of life, from 0 to 1) of these health states. Second, we elicited the preference for the use of short-term postpartum thromboprophylaxis with LMWH vs none across different risks of postpartum VTE and bleeding through direct-choice exercises.

RESULTS

Among 122 participants, median (IQR) health state utilities were 0.725 (0.30-0.925) for pulmonary embolism, 0.75 (0.40-0.97) for postpartum hemorrhage, 0.85 (0.60-0.97) for deep vein thrombosis, and 0.96 (0.96-0.999) for LMWH injections. The median risk of postpartum VTE for preference of the use of postpartum thromboprophylaxis over no treatment was 0.1% (IQR, 0.01%-0.50%) without LMWH-associated bleeding risk and 0.2% (IQR, 0.1%-5%) with a 1% bleeding risk.

CONCLUSION

European pregnant women appear to have a high willingness for 10-day postpartum thromboprophylaxis, preferred over no treatment even for low risks of postpartum VTE. This perspective from patients supports the urgent need for a randomized trial evaluating the efficacy and safety of postpartum thromboprophylaxis.

Evaluation of Health-Related Values and Preferences of Adults Who Were Preterm Infants and Parents of Preterm Infants Concerning Use of Prophylactic Cyclooxygenase Inhibitor Drugs

IMPORTANCE

There is wide variability in the use of prophylactic cyclooxygenase inhibitor (COX-I) drugs to prevent morbidity and mortality in preterm infants. Parents of preterm infants are rarely involved in this decision-making process.

OBJECTIVE

To explore the health-related values and preferences of adults who were preterm infants and families of preterm infants concerning the prophylactic use of indomethacin, ibuprofen, and acetaminophen initiated within the first 24 hours after birth.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This cross-sectional study used direct choice experiments conducted in 2 phases of virtual video-conferenced interviews between March 3, 2021, and February 10, 2022: (1) a pilot feasibility study and (2) a formal study of values and preferences, using a predefined convenience sample. Participants included adults born very preterm (gestational age <32 weeks) or parents of very preterm infants currently in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) or having graduated from the NICU in the last 5 years.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Relative importance of clinical outcomes, willingness to use each of the COX-Is when presented as the only option, preference for using prophylactic hydrocortisone vs indomethacin, willingness to use any of the COX-Is when all 3 options are available, and relative importance of having family values and preferences included in decision-making.

RESULTS

Of 44 participants enrolled, 40 were included in the formal study (31 parents and 9 adults born preterm). The median gestational age of the participant or the participant's child at birth was 26.0 (IQR, 25.0-28.8) weeks. Death (median score, 100 [IQR, 100-100]) and severe intraventricular hemorrhage (IVH) (median score, 90.0 [IQR, 80.0-100]) were rated as the 2 most critical outcomes. Based on direct choice experiments, most participants were willing to consider prophylactic indomethacin (36 [90.0%]) or ibuprofen (34 [85.0%]), but not acetaminophen (4 [10.0%]) when offered as the only option. Among participants who initially chose indomethacin (n = 36), if prophylactic hydrocortisone was offered as a potential therapy with the caveat that both cannot be used simultaneously, only 12 of 36 (33.3%) preferred to remain with indomethacin. Variability in preference was noted when all 3 COX-I options were available, indomethacin (19 [47.5%]) being the most preferred option followed by ibuprofen (16 [40.0%]), while the remainder opted for no prophylaxis (5 [12.5%]).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The findings of this cross-sectional study of former preterm infants and parents of preterm infants suggest that there was minimal variability in how participants valued the main outcomes, with death and severe IVH being rated as the 2 most important undesirable outcomes. While indomethacin was the most preferred form of prophylaxis, variability was noted in the choice of COX-I interventions when participants were presented with the benefits and harms of each drug.

Evaluating adults' health-related values and preferences about unprocessed red meat and processed meat consumption: protocol for a cross-sectional mixed-methods study

Background: People need to choose from a wide range of foods, and in addition to availability and accessibility, people's values and preferences largely determine their daily food choices. Given the potential adverse health consequences of red and processed meat and the limited knowledge on individuals' health-related values and preferences on the topic, such data would be useful in the development of recommendations regarding meat consumption. Methods and analysis: We will perform a cross-sectional mixed methods study. The study population will consist of adult omnivores currently consuming a minimum of three weekly servings of either unprocessed red meat or processed meat. We will explore participants' willingness to stop or reduce their unprocessed red meat, or their processed meat consumption through a direct-choice exercise. This exercise will consist of presenting a scenario tailored to each individual's average weekly consumption. That is, based on a systematic review and meta-analysis of the best estimate of the risk reduction in overall cancer incidence and cancer mortality, we will ask participants if they would stop their consumption, and/or reduce their average consumption. We will also present the corresponding certainty of the evidence for the potential risk reductions. Finally, we will measure their meat consumption three months after the interview and determine if they have made any changes to their average consumption. Ethics and dissemination: The research protocol was approved by the ethics committees in Canada (Research Ethics Board, Dalhousie University), Spain (Comitè Ètic d'Investigació Clínica de l'IDIAP Jordi Gol), Poland (The Bioethics Committee of the Jagiellonian University), and Brazil (National Research Ethics Commission). The study is based on voluntary participation and informed written consent. Results from this project will be disseminated through publications and presentations.

Evaluating adults' health-related values and preferences about unprocessed red meat and processed meat consumption: protocol for a cross-sectional mixed-methods study

Background: People need to choose from a wide range of foods, and in addition to availability and accessibility, people's values and preferences largely determine their daily food choices. Given the potential adverse health consequences of red and processed meat and the limited knowledge on individuals' health-related values and preferences on the topic, such data would be useful in the development of recommendations regarding meat consumption. Methods and analysis: We will perform an international cross-sectional mixed methods study in four countries across two continents. The study population will consist of adult omnivores currently consuming a minimum of three weekly servings of either unprocessed red meat or processed meat. We will explore participants' willingness to stop or reduce their unprocessed red meat, or their processed meat consumption through a direct-choice exercise. This exercise will consist of presenting a scenario tailored to each individual's average weekly consumption. That is, based on a systematic review and meta-analysis of the best estimate of the risk reduction in overall cancer mortality and cancer incidence, we will ask participants if they would stop their consumption, and/or reduce their average consumption. We will also present the corresponding certainty of the evidence for the potential risk reductions. Finally, for all included participants, we will measure their meat consumption three months after the interview and determine if they have made any changes to their average consumption. Ethics and dissemination: The research protocol was approved by the ethics committees in Canada (Research Ethics Board, Dalhousie University), Spain (Comitè Ètic d'Investigació Clínica de l'IDIAP Jordi Gol), Poland (The Bioethics Committee of the Jagiellonian University), and Brazil (National Research Ethics Commission). The study is based on voluntary participation and informed written consent. Results from this project will be disseminated through publications and presentations.

Women's values and preferences for thromboprophylaxis during pregnancy: a comparison of direct-choice and decision analysis using patient specific utilities

BACKGROUND

Women with a history of venous thromboembolism (VTE) have an increased recurrence risk during pregnancy. Low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) reduces this risk, but is costly, burdensome, and may increase risk of bleeding. The decision to start thromboprophylaxis during pregnancy is sensitive to women's values and preferences. Our objective was to compare women's choices using a holistic approach in which they were presented all of the relevant information (direct-choice) versus a personalized decision analysis in which a mathematical model incorporated their preferences and VTE risk to make a treatment recommendation.

METHODS

Multicenter, international study. Structured interviews were on women with a history of VTE who were pregnant, planning, or considering pregnancy. Women indicated their willingness to receive thromboprophylaxis based on scenarios using personalized estimates of VTE recurrence and bleeding risks. We also obtained women's values for health outcomes using a visual analog scale. We performed individualized decision analyses for each participant and compared model recommendations to decisions made when presented with the direct-choice exercise.

RESULTS

Of the 123 women in the study, the decision model recommended LMWH for 51 women and recommended against LMWH for 72 women. 12% (6/51) of women for whom the decision model recommended thromboprophylaxis chose not to take LMWH; 72% (52/72) of women for whom the decision model recommended against thromboprophylaxis chose LMWH.

CONCLUSIONS

We observed a high degree of discordance between decisions in the direct-choice exercise and decision model recommendations. Although which approach best captures individuals' true values remains uncertain, personalized decision support tools presenting results based on personalized risks and values may improve decision making.

Patient values and preferences when choosing anticoagulants

BACKGROUND

New oral anticoagulants have similar efficacy and lower bleeding rates compared with warfarin. However, in case of bleeding there is no specific antidote to reverse their effects. We evaluated the preferences and values of anticoagulants of patients at risk of atrial fibrillation and those who have already made a decision regarding anticoagulation.

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional study of Veterans in the primary care clinics and the international normalized ratio (INR) laboratory. We developed an instrument with patient and physician input to measure patient values and preferences. The survey contained a hypothetical scenario of the risk of atrial fibrillation and the attributes of each anticoagulant. After the scenario, we asked participants to choose the option that best fits their preferences. The options were: 1) has better efficacy at reducing risk of stroke; 2) has been in the market for a long period of time; 3) has an antidote to reverse the rare case of bleeding; 4) has better quality of life profile with no required frequent laboratory tests; or 5) I want to follow physician recommendations. We stratified our results by those patients who are currently exposed to anticoagulants and those who are not exposed but are at risk of atrial fibrillation.

RESULTS

We approached 173 Veterans and completed 137 surveys (79% response rate). Ninety subjects were not exposed to anticoagulants, 46 reported being on warfarin, and one reported being on dabigatran at the time of the survey. Ninety-eight percent of subjects stated they would like to participate in the decision-making process of selecting an anticoagulant. Thirty-six percent of those exposed and 37% of those unexposed to anticoagulants reported that they would select a medication that has an antidote even if the risk of bleeding was very small. Twenty-three percent of the unexposed and 22% of the exposed groups reported that they would prefer the medication that gives the best quality of life.

CONCLUSION

Our study found that patients who may be exposed to an anticoagulation decision prefer to actively participate in the decision-making process, and have individual values for making a decision that cannot be predicted or assumed by anyone in the health care system.

Patients' values and preferences of the expected efficacy of hip arthroscopy for osteoarthritis: a protocol for a multinational structured interview-based study combined with a randomised survey on the optimal amount of information to elicit preferences

INTRODUCTION

Symptomatic hip osteoarthritis (OA) is a disabling condition with up to a 25% cumulative lifetime risk. Total hip arthroplasty (THA) is effective in relieving patients' symptoms and improving function. It is, however, associated with substantial risk of complications, pain and major functional limitation before patients can return to full function. In contrast, hip arthroscopy (HA) is less invasive and can postpone THA. However, there is no evidence regarding the delay in the need for THA that patients would find acceptable to undergoing HA. Knowing patients' values and preferences (VP) on this expected delay is critical when making recommendations regarding the advisability of HA. Furthermore, little is known on the optimal amount of information regarding interventions and outcomes needed to present in order to optimally elicit patients' VP.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will perform a multinational, structured interview-based survey of preference in delay time for THA among patients with non-advanced OA who failed to respond to conservative therapy. We will combine these interviews with a randomised trial addressing the optimal amount of information regarding the interventions and outcomes required to elicit preferences. Eligible patients will be randomly assigned (1 : 1) to either a short or a long format of health scenarios of THA and HA. We will determine each patient's VP using a trade-off and anticipated regret exercises. Our primary outcomes for the combined surveys will be: (1) the minimal delay time in the need for THA surgery that patients would find acceptable to undertaking HA, (2) patients' satisfaction with the amount of information provided in the health scenarios used to elicit their VPs.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The protocol has been approved by the Hamilton Integrated Research Ethics Board (HIREB13-506). We will disseminate our study findings through peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations, and make them available to guideline makers issuing recommendations addressing HA and THA.