https://www.mdu.se/

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.