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

Author:

Wilson Leslie1ORCID,Zheng Patricia1,Ionova Yelena1,Denham Alina2,Yoo Connie1,Ma Yanlei3,Greco Carol M4ORCID,Hanmer Janel4,Williams David A5,Hassett Afton L5ORCID,Scheffler Aaron Wolfe1,Valone Frank1,Mehling Wolf1,Berven Sigurd1,Lotz Jeffrey1ORCID,O’Neill Conor1

Affiliation:

1. University of California San Francisco , San Francisco, CA 94143, United States

2. Harvard Medical School , Boston, MA 02115, United States

3. Cornell University , Ithaca, NY 14853, United States

4. University of Pittsburgh , Pittsburgh, PA 15260, United States

5. University of Michigan , Ann Arbor, MI 48104, United States

Abstract

Abstract 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.

Funder

National Institutes of Health HEAL Initiative

Publisher

Oxford University Press (OUP)

Subject

Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine,Neurology (clinical),General Medicine

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3