Meeting Brochure and registration form      SMDM Homepage

Tuesday, October 23, 2007 - 4:30 PM
H-3

USING CONJOINT ANALYSIS TO ELICIT PATIENT VALUES AND IDENTIFY TREATMENT CHOICES FOR HEART DISEASE PREVENTION

Jennifer M. Griffith, DrPH, MPH1, Carmen Lewis, MD, MPH1, Sarah T. Hawley, PhD, MPH2, Stacey Sheridan, MD, MPH1, and Michael Pignone, MD, MPH3. (1) University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, (2) University of Michigan, Ann Arbor VA Health System, Ann Arbor, MI, (3) University of North Carolina- Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC

Purpose: We used traditional conjoint analysis to elicit patient values and identify optimal treatment choices and compared them with directly selected choices for heart disease prevention.

Methods: We enrolled participants between the ages of 30 and 75 without previous coronary disease. Each participant was asked to respond to hypothetical patient scenario about heart disease (e.g. a 50 year-old man with a moderate risk (13%) of a heart attack occurring in the next 10 years) using their own values. Participants completed a values elicitation exercise using conjoint analysis; responses were used to calculate part-worth utilities. We then used a pre-defined attribute algorithm for treatment options along with each participant's part-worth utilities to identify his or her optimal treatment choice to prevent a heart attack. Treatment choices included aspirin, blood pressure medication, cholesterol medication, or physical activity 30-40 minutes 3 times per week. The generated choice was compared with the treatment choice each participant selected after the values elicitation exercise. Participants selected their preferred treatment choice without knowing the treatment choice generated by their responses to the values elicitation exercise.

Results: 113 participants completed the study. Average age was 51 years old, 29% were male, and 52% white and 42% were African American. Most (52%) had completed a 4-year college degree of more. After the values elicitation exercise using conjoint analysis most (65%) selected physical activity as their preferred choice. 54% of participants had different selected and conjoint-generated treatment choices.

 

 

Conjoint-Generated Treatment Choice

 

Aspirin

Blood Pressure Medication

Cholesterol Medication

Physical Activity

Participant Selected Treatment Choice

Aspirin

6%

11%

0%

3%

Blood Pressure Medication

4%

5%

0%

4%

Cholesterol Medication

0%

1%

0%

2%

Physical Activity

8%

22%

0%

35%

Conclusion: Conjoint analysis produced different treatment choices than those directly elicited from participants. These differences may have implications for the use of conjoint analysis to elicit values and identify optimal treatment choices. This technique may be an mportant tool to help providers and patients communicate and reach treatment choice decisions.


See more of Concurrent Abstracts H: Preferences and Behaviors of Patients and Providers
See more of The 29th Annual Meeting of the Society for Medical Decision Making (October 20-24, 2007)