An exploration of parents' preferences for foot care in juvenile idiopathic arthritis: a possible role for the discrete choice experiment

Adolescent and caregiver preferences for juvenile idiopathic arthritis treatment: a discrete-choice experiment

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to elicit and quantify preferences for treatments for juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA).

METHODS

We conducted a discrete-choice experiment among adolescents with JIA in the United States (US) (n = 197) and United Kingdom (UK) (n = 100) and caregivers of children with JIA in the US (n = 207) and UK (n = 200). In a series of questions, respondents chose between experimentally designed profiles for hypothetical JIA treatments that varied in efficacy (symptom control; time until next flare-up), side effects (stomachache, nausea, and vomiting; headaches), mode and frequency of administration, and the need for combination therapy. Using a random-parameters logit model, we estimated preference weights for these attributes, from which we derived their conditional relative importance.

RESULTS

On average, respondents preferred greater symptom control; greater time until the next flare-up; less stomachache, nausea, and vomiting; and fewer headaches. However, adolescents and caregivers in the US were generally indifferent across varying modes and frequencies of administration. UK adolescents and caregivers preferred tablets, syrup, or injections to intravenous infusions. US and UK adolescents were indifferent between treatment with monotherapy or combination therapy; caregivers in the UK preferred treatment with combination therapy to monotherapy. Subgroup analysis showed preference heterogeneity across characteristics including gender, treatment experience, and symptom experience in both adolescents and caregivers.

CONCLUSIONS

Improved symptom control, prolonged time to next flare-up, and avoidance of adverse events such as headache, stomachache, nausea, and vomiting are desirable characteristics of treatment regimens for adolescents with JIA and their caregivers.

Contingent Valuation Studies in Orthopaedic Surgery: A Health Economic Review

BACKGROUND

A greater emphasis on providing high-value orthopaedic interventions has resulted in increased health economic reporting. The contingent-valuation method (CVM) is used to determine consumer valuation of the benefits provided by healthcare interventions. CVM is an important value-based health economic tool that is underutilized in orthopaedic surgery.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

The purpose of this study was to (1) identify previously published CVM studies in the orthopaedic literature, (2) assess the methodologies used for CVM research, and (3) understand how CVM has been used in the orthopaedic cost-benefit analysis framework.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature using the MEDLINE database was performed to compile CVM studies. Search terms incorporated the phrase willingness to pay (WTP) or willingness to accept (WTA) in combination with orthopaedic clinical key terms. Study methodology was appraised using previously defined empirical and conceptual criteria for CVM studies.

RESULTS

Of the 160 studies retrieved, 22 (13.8%) met our inclusion criteria. The economics of joint arthroplasty (n = 6, 27.3%) and non-operative osteoarthritis care (n = 4, 18.2%) were the most common topics. Most studies used CVM for pricing and/or demand forecasting (n = 16, 72.7%); very few studies used CVM for program evaluation (n = 6). WTP was used in all included studies, and one study used both WTP and WTA. Otherwise, there was little consistency among included studies in terms of CVM methodology. Open-ended questioning was used by only ten studies (45.5%), a significant number of studies did not perform a sensitivity analysis (n = 9, 40.9%), and none of the studies accounted for the risk preference of subjects. Only two of the included studies applied CVM within a cost-benefit analysis framework.

CONCLUSION

CVM is not commonly reported in orthopaedic surgery and is seldom used in the context of cost-benefit analysis. There is wide variability in the methods used to perform CVM. We propose that CVM is an appropriate and underappreciated method for understanding the value of orthopaedic interventions. Increased attention should be paid to consumer valuations for orthopaedic interventions.