Using a Discrete-Choice Experiment in a Decision Aid to Nudge Patients Towards Value-Concordant Treatment Choices in Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Proof-of-Concept Study

• Published in: Patient preference and adherence Vol. 14; pp. 829 - 838
• Main Authors: Hazlewood, Glen S, Marshall, Deborah A, Barber, Claire E H, Li, Linda C, Barnabe, Cheryl, Bykerk, Vivian, Tugwell, Peter, Hull, Pauline M, Bansback, Nick
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: New Zealand Taylor & Francis Ltd 01.01.2020; Dove; Dove Medical Press
• Subjects: Algorithms; Clinical decision making; conjoint analysis; Decision making; Decision support systems; decision tool; Drug therapy; methotrexate; Original Research; Patients; Preferences; Rheumatoid arthritis; Software; Usability; value concordance; methotrexate; decision tool; value concordance; conjoint analysis
• ISSN: 1177-889X; 1177-889X
• DOI: 10.2147/PPA.S221897

To evaluate, in a proof-of-concept study, a decision aid that incorporates hypothetical choices in the form of a discrete-choice experiment (DCE), to help patients with early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) understand their values and nudge them towards a value-centric decision between methotrexate and triple therapy (a combination of methotrexate, sulphasalazine and hydroxychloroquine). In the decision aid, patients completed a series of 6 DCE choice tasks. Based on the patient's pattern of responses, we calculated his/her probability of choosing each treatment, using data from a prior DCE. Following pilot testing, we conducted a cross-sectional study to determine the agreement between the predicted and final stated preference, as a measure of value concordance. Secondary outcomes including time to completion and usability were also evaluated. Pilot testing was completed with 10 patients and adjustments were made. We then recruited 29 patients to complete the survey: median age 57, 55% female. The patients were all taking treatment and had well-controlled disease. The predicted treatment agreed with the final treatment chosen by the patient 21/29 times (72%), similar to the expected agreement from the mean of the predicted probabilities (68%). Triple therapy was the predicted treatment 24/29 times (83%) and chosen 20/29 (69%) times. Half of the patients (51%) agreed that completing the choice questions helped them to understand their preferences (38% neutral, 10% disagreed). The tool took an average of 15 minutes to complete, and median usability scores were 55 (system usability scale) indicating "OK" usability. Using a DCE as a value-clarification task within a decision aid is feasible, with promising potential to help nudge patients towards a value-centric decision. Usability testing suggests further modifications are needed prior to implementation, perhaps by having the DCE exercises as an "add-on" to a simpler decision aid.