Evaluating Treatment Preferences and Perceptions of a Prosthetic Versus a Transplanted Hand: A Conjoint Analysis-Based Study.

INTRODUCTION: This study used a conjoint analysis-based survey to assess which factors are most influential when considering treatment with a prosthesis or transplant after a unilateral hand amputation. METHODS: Overall, 469 respondents were recruited using Amazon Mechanical Turk and asked to assume that they experienced a hand amputation. To determine preferences for a prosthetic, respondents chose among 11 pairs of alternatives with variations in the following attributes: appearance, function, maintenance, and learning time. Respondents were then presented with descriptions of the risks and outcomes of hand transplantation. The most compelling reasons for and against a transplant were determined and characteristics predictive of support for a transplant were identified. RESULTS: The most important attributes for a prosthesis were "lifelike appearance" and "myolectric function." For hand transplantation, respondents were most concerned about immunosuppression side effects (n = 323, 69%) and the intense nature of surgery (n = 275, 59%), whereas the most positive benefit was the concept of the transplant being "natural" (n = 339, 72%). When faced with the choice of a hand transplant or a prosthetic, approximately 50% of respondents chose a transplantation. Younger age, previous medical experiences, a perceived "familiarity with medical issues," and the regular attendance of religious services were associated with strong support for a hand transplantation (P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: When considering a hand prosthesis, respondents are motivated most by appearance and function. Meanwhile, with hand transplantation, the risks of immunosuppression and the intense nature of surgery and recovery are predominant concerns. These findings may help inform patient-physician discussions when considering treatment after unilateral hand amputation.

Patient Perspectives on the Cost of Hand Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Health-care expenditures in the U.S. are continually rising, prompting providers, patients, and payers to search for solutions to reduce costs while maintaining quality. The present study seeks to define the out-of-pocket price that patients undergoing hand surgery are willing to pay, and also queries the potential cost-cutting measures that patients are most and least comfortable with. We hypothesized that respondents would be less accepting of higher out-of-pocket costs. METHODS: A survey was developed and distributed to paid, anonymous respondents through Amazon Mechanical Turk. The survey introduced 3 procedures: carpal tunnel release, cubital tunnel release, and open reduction and internal fixation of a distal radial fracture. Respondents were randomized to 1 of 5 out-of-pocket price options for each procedure and asked if they would pay that price. Respondents were then presented with various cost-saving methods and asked to select the options that made them most uncomfortable, even if those would save them out-of-pocket costs. RESULTS: There were 1,408 respondents with a mean age of 37 years (range, 18 to 74 years). Nearly 80% of respondents were willing to pay for all 3 of the procedures regardless of which price they were presented. Carpal tunnel release was the most price-sensitive, with rejection rates of 17% at the highest price ($3,000) and 6% at the lowest ($250). Open reduction and internal fixation was the least price-sensitive, with rejection rates of 11% and 6% at the highest and lowest price, respectively. The use of older-generation implants was the least acceptable cost-cutting measure, at 50% of respondents. CONCLUSIONS: The present study showed that most patients are willing to pay a considerable amount of money out of pocket for hand surgery after the condition, treatment, and outcomes are explained to them. Furthermore, respondents are hesitant to sacrifice advanced technology despite increased costs.

Surgeon Applications of Patient Preferences in Treatment Decision Making for First-Time Anterior Shoulder Dislocation.

BACKGROUND: Treatment of a first-time anterior shoulder dislocation (FTASD) is sensitive to patient preferences. The operative or nonoperative management debate provides an excellent opportunity to learn how surgeons apply patient preferences in treatment decisions. PURPOSE: To determine how patient preferences (repeat dislocation risk, recovery difficulties, fear of surgery, treatment costs) and surgeon factors influence a surgeon's treatment plan for FTASD. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. METHODS: Eight clinical vignettes of hypothetical patients with FTASD (including age, sex, and activity level) were presented to members of the Magellan Society. A second set of matched vignettes with patient preferences and clinical variables were also presented. The vignettes represented scenarios in which evidence does not favor one treatment over another. Respondents were asked how they would manage each hypothetical case. Respondents also estimated the risk of redislocation for the nonoperative cases for comparison with the published rates. Finally, respondents completed a Likert-scale questionnaire to determine their perceptions on factors influencing their decisions. RESULTS: A total of 103 orthopaedic surgeons completed the survey; 48% practiced in an academic hospital; 79% were in practice for 10 years or longer; and 75% had completed a sports medicine fellowship. Patient preferences were the single most important factor influencing treatment recommendation, with activity type and age also important. Just 62% of the surgeon estimates of the risk of redislocation were consistent with the published rates. The inclusion of patient preferences to clinical variables changed treatment recommendations in 62.5% of our hypothetical cases. Respondents rated patient treatment preference as the leading factor in their treatment decision making. CONCLUSION: Patient preferences were important when deciding the appropriate treatment for FTASD. Respondents were inconsistent when applying evidence in their decision making and estimates of recurrent instability. Decision support tools that deliver patient preferences and personalized evidence-based outcome estimates improve the quality of decision making at the point of care.

Conjoint Analysis of Treatment Preferences for Nondisplaced Scaphoid Fractures.

PURPOSE: We used conjoint analysis to assess the relative importance of factors that influence a patient's decision between surgical or nonsurgical management of a nondisplaced scaphoid fracture. Our hypothesis was that out-of-pocket costs will have a greater influence on decision making than the time spent in a cast or brace, degree of soreness, or the risk of treatment failure. METHODS: Two-hundred and fifty participants were recruited using Amazon Mechanical Turk and asked to assume that they had experienced a nondisplaced scaphoid waist fracture. They then indicated their relative preferences among 13 pairs of alternatives with variations in the following attributes: time in a cast, time in a brace, duration of ongoing soreness, risk of treatment failure (by which we meant scaphoid nonunion), out-of-pocket costs based on estimates of direct costs ($500-2,500), and apprehension about surgery. A conjoint analysis was used to determine the relative importance of these factors when choosing between surgical or nonsurgical management. RESULTS: The factor with the greatest influence on treatment choice was the cost of the procedure. After assessing the respondent's apprehension to undergo surgery, a sensitivity analysis showed the proportion of respondents who would choose surgery given different outcomes. To make the predicted share of those who are "not worried" about surgery equal to those who are "somewhat worried" or "a little worried" would require that the cost of surgery increase by $2,700. In addition, 2 weeks in a cast, 3 weeks in a brace, 2 months of soreness, or a 2% increase in the risk of fracture nonunion generates the same surgical choice probability as a $2,000 increase in the out-of-pocket cost of surgery. CONCLUSIONS: As conceptualized in this conjoint analysis, out-of-pocket costs and apprehension about surgery seem to have a greater impact on a decision for surgery than the time spent in a brace or cast and the risk of treatment failure. TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Economic and decision analysis III.

Understanding Preferences for Treatment After Hypothetical First-Time Anterior Shoulder Dislocation: Surveying an Online Panel Utilizing a Novel Shared Decision-Making Tool.

BACKGROUND: Although surgical management of a first-time anterior shoulder dislocation (FTASD) can reduce the risk of recurrent dislocation, other treatment characteristics, costs, and outcomes are important to patients considering treatment options. While patient preferences, such as those elicited by conjoint analysis, have been shown to be important in medical decision-making, the magnitudes or effects of patient preferences in treating an FTASD are unknown. PURPOSE: To test a novel shared decision-making tool after sustained FTASD. Specifically measured were the following: (1) importance of aspects of operative versus nonoperative treatment, (2) respondents' agreement with results generated by the tool, (3) willingness to share these results with physicians, and (4) association of results with choice of treatment after FTASD. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional study; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: A tool was designed and tested using members of Amazon Mechanical Turk, an online panel. The tool included an adaptive conjoint analysis exercise, a method to understand individuals' perceived importance of the following attributes of treatment: (1) chance of recurrent dislocation, (2) cost, (3) short-term limits on shoulder motion, (4) limits on participation in high-risk activities, and (5) duration of physical therapy. Respondents then chose between operative and nonoperative treatment for hypothetical shoulder dislocation. RESULTS: Overall, 374 of 501 (75%) respondents met the inclusion criteria, of which most were young, active males; one-third reported prior dislocation. From the conjoint analysis, the importance of recurrent dislocation and cost of treatment were the most important attributes. A substantial majority agreed with the tool's ability to generate representative preferences and indicated that they would share these preferences with their physician. Importance of recurrence proved significantly predictive of respondents' treatment choices, independent of sex or age; however, activity level was important to previous dislocators. A total of 125 (55%) males and 33 (23%) females chose surgery after FTASD, as did 37% of previous dislocators compared with 45% of nondislocators. CONCLUSION: When given thorough information about the risks and benefits, respondents had strong preferences for operative treatment after an FTASD. Respondents agreed with the survey results and wanted to share the information with providers. Recurrence was the most important attribute and played a role in decisions about treatment.

Patient Preferences in Treatment Choices for Early-Stage Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Decision-making for lung cancer treatment can be complex because it involves both provider recommendations based on the patient's clinical condition and patient preferences. This study describes the relative importance of several considerations in lung cancer treatment from the patient's perspective. METHODS: A conjoint preference experiment began by asking respondents to imagine that they had just been diagnosed with lung cancer. Respondents then chose among procedures that differed regarding treatment modalities, the potential for treatment-related complications, the likelihood of recurrence, provider case volume, and distance needed to travel for treatment. Conjoint analysis derived relative weights for these attributes. RESULTS: A total of 225 responses were analyzed. Respondents were most willing to accept minimally invasive operations for treatment of their hypothetical lung cancer, followed by stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT); they were least willing to accept thoracotomy. Treatment type and risk of recurrence were the most important attributes from the conjoint experiment (each with a relative weight of 0.23), followed by provider volume (relative weight of 0.21), risk of major complications (relative weight of 0.18), and distance needed to travel for treatment (relative weight of 0.15). Procedural and treatment preferences did not vary with demographics, self-reported health status, or familiarity with the procedures. CONCLUSIONS: Survey respondents preferred minimally invasive operations over SBRT or thoracotomy for treatment of early-stage non-small cell lung cancer. Treatment modality and risk of cancer recurrence were the most important factors associated with treatment preferences. Provider experience outweighed the potential need to travel for lung cancer treatment.

Assessing whether there is a cancer premium for the value of a statistical life.

This article estimates whether there is a cancer risk premium for the value of a statistical life using stated preference valuations of cancer risks for a large, nationally representative US sample. The present value of an expected cancer case that occurs after a one decade latency period is $10.85m, consistent with a cancer premium that is 21% greater than the median value of a statistical life estimates for acute fatalities. This cancer premium is smaller than the premium proposed for policy analyses in the UK and the USA. There is also a greater premium for policies that reduce cancer risks to zero and for risk reductions affecting those who perceive themselves to have a greater than average probability of having cancer.

Choosing among employer-sponsored health plans: what drives employee choices?

OBJECTIVE: To probe employee basis for choosing health plans. METHODS: In a Web study, 337 employees from large private and public employers were asked to choose among health plans varying on several common dimensions. RESULTS: On per-dollar basis, respondents were more willing to spend $3 to $4 on out-of-pocket copayments than $1 on premiums. Nevertheless, sensitivity to monthly premium is greatest among those who are younger and cover only themselves, whereas sensitivity to the annual deductible is greatest among nonwhite families. CONCLUSION: Employees are facing a complicated choice and might be well-served by more information about the value of options under different likelihood scenarios.

Weighting composite endpoints in clinical trials: essential evidence for the heart team.

BACKGROUND: Coronary revascularization trials often use a composite endpoint of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE). The usual practice in analyzing data with a composite endpoint is to assign equal weights to each of the individual MACCE elements. Noninferiority margins are used to offset effects of presumably less important components, but their magnitudes are subject to bias. This study describes the relative importance of MACCE elements from a patient perspective. METHODS: A discrete choice experiment was conducted. Survey respondents were presented with a scenario that would make them eligible for the Synergy Between Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With Taxus and Cardiac Surgery (SYNTAX) trial three-vessel disease cohort. Respondents chose among pairs of procedures that differed on the 3-year probability of MACCE, potential for increased longevity, and procedure/recovery time. Conjoint analysis derived relative weights for these attributes. RESULTS: In all, 224 respondents completed the survey. The attributes did not have equal weight. Risk of death was most important (relative weight 0.23), followed by stroke (0.18), potential increased longevity and recovery time (each 0.17), myocardial infarction (0.14), and risk of repeat revascularization (0.11). Applying these weights to the SYNTAX 3-year endpoints resulted in a persistent, but decreased margin of difference in MACCE favoring coronary artery bypass graft surgery compared to percutaneous coronary intervention. When labeled only as "procedure A" and "procedure B," 87% of respondents chose coronary artery bypass graft surgery over percutaneous coronary intervention. When procedures were labeled as "coronary stent" and "coronary bypass surgery," only 73% chose coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Procedural preference varied with demographics, sex, and familiarity with the procedures. CONCLUSIONS: The MACCE elements do not carry equal weight in a composite endpoint, from a patient perspective. Using a weighted composite endpoint increases the validity of statistical analyses and trial conclusions. Patients are subject to bias by labels when considering coronary revascularization.

Survey mode effects on valuation of environmental goods.

This article evaluates the effect of the choice of survey recruitment mode on the value of water quality in lakes, rivers, and streams. Four different modes are compared: bringing respondents to one central location after phone recruitment, mall intercepts in two states, national phone-mail survey, and an Internet survey with a national, probability-based panel. The modes differ in terms of the representativeness of the samples, non-response rates, sample selection effects, and consistency of responses. The article also shows that the estimated value of water quality can differ substantially depending on the survey mode. The national Internet panel has the most desirable properties with respect to performance on the four important survey dimensions of interest.

Economic analysis of influenza vaccination and antiviral treatment for healthy working adults.

BACKGROUND: Physicians have several treatment options for influenza, including vaccination and various antiviral therapies. However, the optimal influenza prevention and treatment strategy is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To compare the relative health values of contemporary treatment strategies for influenza in a healthy sample of working adults. DESIGN: Cost-benefit analysis using a decision model. DATA SOURCES: Previously published data. TARGET POPULATION: Healthy employed adults 18 to 50 years of age. TIME HORIZON: A complete influenza season. PERSPECTIVE: Societal. INTERVENTIONS: Eight treatment options (yes or no) based on the possible combinations of vaccination and antiviral therapy (rimantadine, oseltamivir, or zanamivir or no treatment) should infection develop. OUTCOME MEASURES: Cost in U.S. dollars, including the value of symptom relief and medication side effects, which was assigned a monetary value through a conjoint analysis that used a "willingness-to-pay" approach. RESULTS: In the base-case analysis, all strategies for influenza vaccination had a higher net benefit than the nonvaccination strategies. Vaccination and use of rimantadine, the most cost-beneficial strategy, was $30.97 more cost-beneficial than nonvaccination and no use of antiviral medication. The health benefits of most antiviral treatments equaled or exceeded their costs for most scenarios. The choice of the most cost-beneficial antiviral strategy was sensitive to the prevalence of influenza B and to the comparative workdays gained by each antiviral therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Vaccination is cost-beneficial in most influenza seasons in healthy working adults. Although the benefits of antiviral therapy for persons with influenza infection appear to justify its cost, head-to-head trials of the various antiviral therapies are needed to determine the optimal treatment strategy.