| Literature DB >> 26020251 |
Li-Chia Chen1, Li-Jen Cheng2, Yan Zhang3, Xin He2, Roger D Knaggs4.
Abstract
Acupuncture is a popular but controversial treatment option for low back pain. In China, it is practised as traditional Chinese medicine; other treatment strategies for low back pain are commonly practised as Western medicine. Research on patient preference for low back-pain treatment options has been mainly conducted in Western countries and is limited to a willingness-to-pay approach. A stated-preference, discrete choice experiment was conducted to determine Chinese patient preferences and trade-offs for acupuncture and low frequency infrared treatment in low back pain from September 2011 to August 2012 after approval from the Department of Scientific Research in the study settings. Eight-six adult outpatients who visited the 'traditional medicine department' at a traditional Chinese medicine hospital and the 'rehabilitation department' at a Western medicine hospital in Guangdong Province of China for chronic low back pain during study period participated in an interview survey. A questionnaire containing 10 scenarios (5 attributes in each scenario) was used to ask participants' preference for acupuncture, low frequency infrared treatment or neither option. Validated responses were analysed using a nested-logit model. The decision on whether to receive a therapy was not associated with the expected utility of receiving therapy, female gender and higher out-of-pocket payment significantly decreased chance to receive treatments. Of the utility of receiving either acupuncture or low frequency infrared treatment, the treatment sensation was the most important attribute as an indicator of treatment efficacy, followed by the maximum efficacy, maintenance duration and onset of efficacy, and the out-of-pocket payment. The willingness-to-pay for acupuncture and low frequency infrared treatment were about $618.6 and $592.4 USD per course respectively, demonstrated patients' demand of pain management. The treatment sensation was regarded as an indicator of treatment efficacy and the most important attribute for choosing acupuncture or low frequency infrared treatment. The high willingness-to-pay demonstrated patients' demand of pain management. However, there may be other factors influencing patients' preference to receive treatments.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26020251 PMCID: PMC4447362 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0126912
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Attributes and levels included in the discrete choice experiment.
| Attributes | Definition | Level of attributes |
|---|---|---|
| Treatment sensation (TRE) | Discomfort caused during treatment | Sore and numb; mild thermal sense and vibration |
| Onset of efficacy (COU) | Number of courses (6 treatments per course) required to achieve the maximum efficacy | 2, 4, 8 courses |
| Maximum efficacy (IMP) | Maximum pain reduction (ex: ambulatory pain, resting pain, difficulty in doing daily activities or sleep) that can be made by the therapy | Minor, moderate, major improvement |
| Duration of efficacy (DUR) | Duration of the effect maintenance after treatment | 2, 6, 12 months |
| Out-of-pocket payment (COS) | Out-of-pocket payment on top of insurance coverage required for one course of treatment | 120, 600, 1000 CNY per course |
(Note)
*1 Chinese Yuan (CNY) = 0.1575 American Dollar (USD) in August 2012, and 0.1637 in August 2013. The out-of-pocket payment ranked was $18.9, $94.5 and $157.5 USD in August 2012.
Fig 1Example of one scenario of choices presented to participants.
Characteristics of the 86 included participants.
| Category | Characteristics | Number of participants (%) |
|---|---|---|
| Age | Mean age ± standrd deviaiton (range) | 44.5±11.9 (22, 74) |
| Gender | Female | 65 (75.6%) |
| Setting | Chinese medicine hospital (%) | 70 (81.4%) |
| Western medicine hospital (%) | 16 (18.6%) | |
| Out-of-pocket payment | Proportion of out-of-pocket payment to current treatment | 43.3% |
| Education level | Secondary school | 2 (2.3%) |
| High school and equivalent | 28 (32.6%) | |
| Bachelor | 48 (55.8%) | |
| Post-graduate | 8 (9.3%) | |
| Monthly family income | 1000 CNY ($157.5 USD) | 2 (2.3%) |
| 1001–3000 CNY ($157.7–472.5 USD) | 24 (27.9%) | |
| 3000–5000 CNY ($472.7–787.5 USD) | 27 (31.4%) | |
| >5000 CNY ($787.5 USD) | 33 (38.4%) | |
| Intensity of back pain | Mild | 27 (31.4%) |
| Moderate | 33 (38.4%) | |
| Sevre | 16 (18.6%) | |
| Very severe | 10 (11.6%) |
(Note)
(a) Proportion of out-of-pocket payment to the cost fo current treatment;
(b) 1 Chinese Yuan (CNY) = 0.1575 American Dollar (USD) in August 2012.
Covariates associated with choosing either therapy in the nested-logit model.
| Covariate | Characteristic | Coefficient (95%CI) | P-value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age (AGE) | Age at interview (year) | 0.01 (-0.02, 0.41) | 0.444 |
| Gender (SEX) | Female | -2.15 (-3.13, -1.18) | <0.001 |
| Education level (EDU) | Secondary school | -0.73 (-2.93, 1.48) | 0.518 |
| Bachelor | -0.96 (-1.69, -0.22) | 0.011 | |
| Post-graduate | -2.10 (-3.39, -0.81) | 0.001 | |
| Monthly family income (INC) | 1000 CNY | 0.81 (-1.38, -2.99) | 0.468 |
| 3000–5000 CNY | 1.09 (0.32, 1.85) | 0.005 | |
| >5000 CNY | 0.36 (-0.38, 1.11) | 0.336 | |
| Intensity of pain (DISC) | Moderate | 0.06 (-0.58, 0.69) | 0.863 |
| More sevre | 0.36 (-0.48, 1.21) | 0.397 | |
| Very severe | 1.11 (-0.05, 2.28) | 0.061 | |
| Out-of-pocket payment (Pay_Pro) | Proportion of out-of-pocket payment | -0.99 (-1.84, -0.13) | 0.024 |
(Note)
* Statistical significance (p<0.05); CNY: Chinese Yuan (1 CNY = 0.1575 USD in August 2012). Monthly family income rank equalled to $157.5, $472.5–787.5, and >$787.5 USD in August 2012.
Impacts of attributes on utility from receiving either therapy in the nested-logit model.
| Variable | Coefficient (95%CI) | P-value | Marginal rate of substitution | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| WTP | MRS | ||||
| Sore and numb sensation | 2.98 (1.00, 4.95) | 0.003 | 3,928 | 21 courses | 19.48 months |
| Mild thermal sense and vibration | 2.85 (0.87, 4.83) | 0.005 | 3,762 | 20 courses | 18.66 months |
| Moderate maximum efficacy | 0.79 (0.38, 1.19) | <0.001 | 1,039 | 6 courses | 5.16 months |
| Major maximum efficacy | 1.65 (0.92, 2.38) | <0.001 | 2,174 | 12 courses | 10.78 months |
| Out-of-pocket payment | -0.00076 (-0.00118, -0.00033) | <0.001 | Reference | - | - |
| Onset time of efficacy | -0.14 (-0.21, -0.07) | <0.001 | 189 | Reference | - |
| Maintenance duration | 0.15 (0.08, 0.22) | <0.001 | 202 | - | Reference |
| IV | 0.75 (0.39, 1.12) | 0.388 | |||
(Note)
(a) WTP: willingness-to-pay in presented in Chinese Yuan;
(b) MRS: marginal rate of substitution between non-cost attributes;
(c) IV: inclusive value;
* Statistical significance (p<0.05).