Using discrete choice experiments to inform randomised controlled trials

an application to chronic low back pain management in primary care

Deokhee Yi, Mandy Ryan, Susan Campbell, Alison Elliott, Nicola Torrance, Alastair Chambers, Marie Johnston, Philip Hannaford, Blair H Smith

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

10 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Pain Management Programmes (PMPs) are a multi-disciplinary approach to the management of chronic low back pain (CLBP). Notwithstanding evidence of effectiveness, successful take-up of programmes requires acceptability to patients. We used a discrete choice experiment to investigate patient preferences for alternative PMPs for managing CLBP in primary care. Specifically, we estimated the probability of uptake of alternative configurations of PMPs. Potential attributes and associated levels influencing take-up were identified through a systematic literature review, survey of current PMPs, expert consultation, and focus groups. Five attributes were included: content; provider; schedule; group size; and travel time to clinic. Four hundred and fourteen questionnaires were mailed to patients attending clinics and 124 questionnaires were returned suitable for analysis. Method of delivery influenced probability of take-up, with small group sizes and low intensity programmes over a prolonged period increasing the probabilities. Travel time was also important. However, providers and contents of PMPs were not main drivers of preferences, though those with more severe pain did prefer PMPs provided by more specialists. Probability of take-up increases when PMPs better reflect patient preferences. Given preferences, resource constraints, and evidence on clinical outcomes of alternative configurations it is suggested more resource-intensive PMPs be reserved for those with the most severe and disabling pain and less intensive programmes delivered over a longer time period in smaller groups for those with less severe pain. These findings can inform future randomised trials to evaluate acceptable PMPs in primary care.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)531.e1-531 e.10
Number of pages10
JournalEuropean Journal of Pain
Volume15
Issue number5
Early online date12 Nov 2010
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - May 2011
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Pain Management
Low Back Pain
Primary Health Care
Randomized Controlled Trials
Patient Preference
Pain
Focus Groups
Appointments and Schedules
Referral and Consultation

Cite this

Yi, Deokhee ; Ryan, Mandy ; Campbell, Susan ; Elliott, Alison ; Torrance, Nicola ; Chambers, Alastair ; Johnston, Marie ; Hannaford, Philip ; Smith, Blair H. / Using discrete choice experiments to inform randomised controlled trials : an application to chronic low back pain management in primary care. In: European Journal of Pain. 2011 ; Vol. 15, No. 5. pp. 531.e1-531 e.10.
@article{2e8244d5650f4e23ba6cc00d9eaab588,
title = "Using discrete choice experiments to inform randomised controlled trials: an application to chronic low back pain management in primary care",
abstract = "Pain Management Programmes (PMPs) are a multi-disciplinary approach to the management of chronic low back pain (CLBP). Notwithstanding evidence of effectiveness, successful take-up of programmes requires acceptability to patients. We used a discrete choice experiment to investigate patient preferences for alternative PMPs for managing CLBP in primary care. Specifically, we estimated the probability of uptake of alternative configurations of PMPs. Potential attributes and associated levels influencing take-up were identified through a systematic literature review, survey of current PMPs, expert consultation, and focus groups. Five attributes were included: content; provider; schedule; group size; and travel time to clinic. Four hundred and fourteen questionnaires were mailed to patients attending clinics and 124 questionnaires were returned suitable for analysis. Method of delivery influenced probability of take-up, with small group sizes and low intensity programmes over a prolonged period increasing the probabilities. Travel time was also important. However, providers and contents of PMPs were not main drivers of preferences, though those with more severe pain did prefer PMPs provided by more specialists. Probability of take-up increases when PMPs better reflect patient preferences. Given preferences, resource constraints, and evidence on clinical outcomes of alternative configurations it is suggested more resource-intensive PMPs be reserved for those with the most severe and disabling pain and less intensive programmes delivered over a longer time period in smaller groups for those with less severe pain. These findings can inform future randomised trials to evaluate acceptable PMPs in primary care.",
author = "Deokhee Yi and Mandy Ryan and Susan Campbell and Alison Elliott and Nicola Torrance and Alastair Chambers and Marie Johnston and Philip Hannaford and Smith, {Blair H}",
note = "Copyright {\circledC} 2010 European Federation of International Association for the Study of Pain Chapters. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.",
year = "2011",
month = "5",
doi = "10.1016/j.ejpain.2010.10.008",
language = "English",
volume = "15",
pages = "531.e1--531 e.10",
journal = "European Journal of Pain",
issn = "1090-3801",
publisher = "W.B. Saunders Ltd",
number = "5",

}

Using discrete choice experiments to inform randomised controlled trials : an application to chronic low back pain management in primary care. / Yi, Deokhee; Ryan, Mandy; Campbell, Susan; Elliott, Alison; Torrance, Nicola; Chambers, Alastair; Johnston, Marie; Hannaford, Philip; Smith, Blair H.

In: European Journal of Pain, Vol. 15, No. 5, 05.2011, p. 531.e1-531 e.10.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Using discrete choice experiments to inform randomised controlled trials

T2 - an application to chronic low back pain management in primary care

AU - Yi, Deokhee

AU - Ryan, Mandy

AU - Campbell, Susan

AU - Elliott, Alison

AU - Torrance, Nicola

AU - Chambers, Alastair

AU - Johnston, Marie

AU - Hannaford, Philip

AU - Smith, Blair H

N1 - Copyright © 2010 European Federation of International Association for the Study of Pain Chapters. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

PY - 2011/5

Y1 - 2011/5

N2 - Pain Management Programmes (PMPs) are a multi-disciplinary approach to the management of chronic low back pain (CLBP). Notwithstanding evidence of effectiveness, successful take-up of programmes requires acceptability to patients. We used a discrete choice experiment to investigate patient preferences for alternative PMPs for managing CLBP in primary care. Specifically, we estimated the probability of uptake of alternative configurations of PMPs. Potential attributes and associated levels influencing take-up were identified through a systematic literature review, survey of current PMPs, expert consultation, and focus groups. Five attributes were included: content; provider; schedule; group size; and travel time to clinic. Four hundred and fourteen questionnaires were mailed to patients attending clinics and 124 questionnaires were returned suitable for analysis. Method of delivery influenced probability of take-up, with small group sizes and low intensity programmes over a prolonged period increasing the probabilities. Travel time was also important. However, providers and contents of PMPs were not main drivers of preferences, though those with more severe pain did prefer PMPs provided by more specialists. Probability of take-up increases when PMPs better reflect patient preferences. Given preferences, resource constraints, and evidence on clinical outcomes of alternative configurations it is suggested more resource-intensive PMPs be reserved for those with the most severe and disabling pain and less intensive programmes delivered over a longer time period in smaller groups for those with less severe pain. These findings can inform future randomised trials to evaluate acceptable PMPs in primary care.

AB - Pain Management Programmes (PMPs) are a multi-disciplinary approach to the management of chronic low back pain (CLBP). Notwithstanding evidence of effectiveness, successful take-up of programmes requires acceptability to patients. We used a discrete choice experiment to investigate patient preferences for alternative PMPs for managing CLBP in primary care. Specifically, we estimated the probability of uptake of alternative configurations of PMPs. Potential attributes and associated levels influencing take-up were identified through a systematic literature review, survey of current PMPs, expert consultation, and focus groups. Five attributes were included: content; provider; schedule; group size; and travel time to clinic. Four hundred and fourteen questionnaires were mailed to patients attending clinics and 124 questionnaires were returned suitable for analysis. Method of delivery influenced probability of take-up, with small group sizes and low intensity programmes over a prolonged period increasing the probabilities. Travel time was also important. However, providers and contents of PMPs were not main drivers of preferences, though those with more severe pain did prefer PMPs provided by more specialists. Probability of take-up increases when PMPs better reflect patient preferences. Given preferences, resource constraints, and evidence on clinical outcomes of alternative configurations it is suggested more resource-intensive PMPs be reserved for those with the most severe and disabling pain and less intensive programmes delivered over a longer time period in smaller groups for those with less severe pain. These findings can inform future randomised trials to evaluate acceptable PMPs in primary care.

U2 - 10.1016/j.ejpain.2010.10.008

DO - 10.1016/j.ejpain.2010.10.008

M3 - Article

VL - 15

SP - 531.e1-531 e.10

JO - European Journal of Pain

JF - European Journal of Pain

SN - 1090-3801

IS - 5

ER -