| Title |
A discrete choice experiment on preferences of patients with rheumatoid arthritis regarding disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: the identification, refinement and selection of attributes and levels
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Patient preference and adherence, August 2018
|
| DOI | 10.2147/ppa.s170721 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Elke GE Mathijssen, Milou van Heuckelum, Liset van Dijk, Marcia Vervloet, Simone MT Zonnenberg, Johanna E Vriezekolk, Bart JF van den Bemt |
| Abstract |
To comprehensively describe the identification, refinement, and selection of attributes and levels for a discrete choice experiment (DCE) on preferences of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) regarding disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs). A mixed-methods approach, consisting of three consecutive steps: a literature review, expert recommendations, and focus groups. Attributes and levels were identified by a scoping review and compiled into a list that was evaluated on its relevance by an expert panel. The list that resulted thereafter was used to inform three focus groups, including 23 patients with RA. New attributes and levels could be identified during the focus groups. Also, a ranking exercise was performed. The patients individually ranked the attributes (ie, the ones on the list and newly identified attributes) by relevance. The patients' individual rankings were summed to derive a ranking at group level and make an a priori selection of the most relevant attributes. The group discussions were transcribed for qualitative analysis. Nineteen attributes, each specified by two to seven levels, were identified by the scoping review. The expert recommendations resulted in the removal of one attribute. Furthermore, two new attributes and levels were identified and two attributes were split into two. One new attribute was identified during the focus groups. The results of the ranking exercise and qualitative analysis led to the refinement and selection of the following attributes: route of administration, frequency of administration, chance of efficacy, onset of action, risk of serious infections, risk of liver injury, and risk of cancer. Each attribute was specified by three levels. This study contributes to the limited literature on the development of attributes and levels. Future research should pay more attention to a comprehensive description of this process. It ensures transparency and thereby allows researchers to judge a DCE's quality and generalizability. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 41 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 41 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 22% |
| Other | 5 | 12% |
| Researcher | 5 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 10% |
| Other | 5 | 12% |
| Unknown | 9 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 11 | 27% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 6 | 15% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 6 | 15% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 5% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 3 | 7% |
| Unknown | 11 | 27% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 August 2018.
All research outputs
#17,292,294
of 25,385,509 outputs
Outputs from Patient preference and adherence
#1,065
of 1,757 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#220,369
of 341,886 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Patient preference and adherence
#38
of 53 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,385,509 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,757 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.5. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 341,886 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 53 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.