Skip Navigation



Rheumatology Advance Access published online on October 29, 2003

Rheumatology, doi:10.1093/rheumatology/keh038
Rheumatology © British Society for Rheumatology 2003; all rights reserved
This Article
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
43/3/337    most recent
keh038v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Ratcliffe, J.
Right arrow Articles by Chancellor, J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Ratcliffe, J.
Right arrow Articles by Chancellor, J.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© 2003 Rheumatology © British Society for Rheumatology 2003; all rights reserved

Original Papers

Patients' preferences for characteristics associated with treatments for osteoarthritis

J. Ratcliffe 1*, M. Buxton 2, T. McGarry 3, R. Sheldon 3, and J. Chancellor 4

1 School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
2 Health Economics Research Group, Brunel University, Uxbridge, UK
3 Accent Marketing and Research, Turnham Green, UK
4 Innovus Research (UK) Ltd, High Wycombe, Bucks, UK

* Corresponding author. E-mail: j.ratcliffe{at}sheffield.ac.uk.

Received 1 May 2003 ; accepted 21 August 2003

Abstract

Objective. The purpose of this study was to investigate patient preferences for attributes associated with the efficacy and side-effects of treatment for osteoarthritis.

Methods. A stated preference design questionnaire was administered to a sample of 412 individuals diagnosed with osteoarthritis (OA).

Results. Statistically significant attributes in influencing treatment preferences were the level of joint aches, the level of physical mobility and the risk of experiencing serious side-effects from treatment. Respondents were relatively more concerned about the risk of serious side-effects (even with a very low probability) than mild to moderate side-effects (at a much higher probability). Data segmentation revealed some variations in preferences according to respondent characteristics. The importance of joint aches increased according to the severity of the symptoms of osteoarthritis, indicating that this attribute is more troublesome to those respondents with more severe symptoms. Older respondents were more willing than younger respondents to accept an increased risk of experiencing serious side-effects for an improvement in the symptoms of OA. Individuals in lower income brackets appeared to attach greater importance to joint aches and the level of mobility experienced than those in higher income brackets. Respondents who had previously experienced gastrointestinal side-effects from treatment were, as expected, more tolerant of them than those who had not.

Conclusion. The use of conjoint analysis to assess patient preferences provides a useful insight to the likely attitudes of patients to novel treatments for osteoarthritis.

Key words: Osteoarthritis, Patient preferences, Stated preference, Conjoint analysis, Side-effects, Risk.
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
J Health Serv Res PolicyHome page
R. Elliott
Non-adherence to medicines: not solved but solvable
J Health Serv Res Policy, January 1, 2009; 14(1): 58 - 61.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Med Decis MakingHome page
J. C. McGregor, A. D. Harris, J. P. Furuno, D. D. Bradham, and E. N. Perencevich
Relative Influence of Antibiotic Therapy Attributes on Physician Choice in Treating Acute Uncomplicated Pyelonephritis
Med Decis Making, August 1, 2007; 27(4): 387 - 394.
[Abstract] [PDF]



Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.