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

BACKGROUND: When 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. OBJECTIVE: This 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. METHODS: Participants 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. RESULTS: The FDR sample (n = 298) spent more time completing the survey and performed better on comprehension questions compared with the general public sample (n = 982). The relative importance ranking was similar between the general public and FDR participant samples; however, other relative preference measures involving weights including MARs and market share differed between groups, with FDRs having numerically higher MARs. CONCLUSION: In 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.

The Burden and Impacts of Mealtime Insulin from the Perspective of People with Diabetes.

INTRODUCTION: While there have been continued advances in insulin treatment for diabetes since the discovery of insulin 100 years ago, some unmet needs still remain, including those related to mealtime insulin (MTI). The objective of this study was to explore the impacts related to MTI and the relative burden of the impacts on people with diabetes. METHODS: This study was conducted across two phases, namely, a qualitative and quantitative phase. People with type 1 and 2 diabetes using MTI in the USA and UK were recruited for the study. The qualitative phase involved 30 interviews to explore the impacts associated with MTI. Based on the results of the qualitative phase, a list of impacts was developed to evaluate the importance of MTI impacts using best-worst scaling. RESULTS: A total of 30 participants completed interviews, and 336 completed the quantitative phase. Participants described a range of impacts associated with MTI, including psychological (72.0%), social (63.0%), work/school (53.8%), and sleep (51.7%). Impacts for the quantitative phase were categorized under the following domains: diabetes distress, diabetes management, work productivity, and social. The three most burdensome impacts were related to diabetes distress, but the diabetes management domain contributed more than diabetes distress to the relative burden. There were minor differences in the relative importance of impacts by diabetes type, diabetes duration, and experience with continuous glucose monitoring. CONCLUSION: This study confirms that people with diabetes using MTI still have an array of unmet needs, including those related to the management of their diabetes and the emotional distress of having diabetes. These findings may be useful for healthcare provider (HCP)-patient interactions to ensure HCPs are allowing patients an opportunity to discuss their experiences with MTI.

Exploring preferences of at-risk individuals for preventive treatments for rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: Some immunomodulatory drugs have been shown to delay the onset of, or lower the risk of developing, rheumatoid arthritis (RA), if given to individuals at risk. Several trials are ongoing in this area; however, little evidence is currently available about the views of those at risk of RA regarding preventive treatment. METHOD: Three focus groups and three interviews explored factors that are relevant to first degree relatives (FDRs) of RA patients and members of the general public when considering taking preventive treatment for RA. The semi-structured qualitative interview prompts explored participant responses to hypothetical attributes of preventive RA medicines. Transcripts of focus group/interview proceedings were inductively coded and analysed using a framework approach. RESULTS: Twenty-one individuals (five FDRs, 16 members of the general public) took part in the study. Ten broad themes were identified describing factors that participants felt would influence their decisions about whether to take preventive treatment if they were at increased risk of RA. These related either directly to features of the specific treatment or to other factors, including personal characteristics, attitude towards taking medication, and an individual's actual risk of developing RA. CONCLUSION: This research highlights the importance of non-treatment factors in the decision-making process around preventive treatments, and will inform recruitment to clinical trials as well as information to support shared decision making by those considering preventive treatment. Studies of treatment preferences in individuals with a confirmed high risk of RA would further inform clinical trial design.