Literature DB >> 32532169

Preferences for Predictive Model Characteristics among People Living with Chronic Lung Disease: A Discrete Choice Experiment.

Gary E Weissman1,2,3,4,5, Kuldeep N Yadav2,3,4, Trishya Srinivasan2,3,4, Stephanie Szymanski2,3,4, Florylene Capulong2,3, Vanessa Madden2,3,4, Katherine R Courtright1,2,3,4,5, Joanna L Hart1,2,3,4,5, David A Asch1,4,5,6,7, Sarah J Ratcliffe8, Marilyn M Schapira1,5,7, Scott D Halpern1,2,3,4,5.   

Abstract

Background. Patients may find clinical prediction models more useful if those models accounted for preferences for false-positive and false-negative predictive errors and for other model characteristics. Methods. We conducted a discrete choice experiment to compare preferences for characteristics of a hypothetical mortality prediction model among community-dwelling patients with chronic lung disease recruited from 3 clinics in Philadelphia. This design was chosen to allow us to quantify "exchange rates" between different characteristics of a prediction model. We provided previously validated educational modules to explain model attributes of sensitivity, specificity, confidence intervals (CI), and time horizons. Patients reported their interest in using prediction models themselves or having their physicians use them. Patients then chose between 2 hypothetical prediction models each containing varying levels of the 4 attributes across 12 tasks. Results. We completed interviews with 200 patients, among whom 95% correctly chose a strictly dominant model in an internal validity check. Patients' interest in predictive information was high for use by themselves (n = 169, 85%) and by their physicians (n = 184, 92%). Interest in maximizing sensitivity and specificity were similar (0.88 percentage points of specificity equivalent to 1 point of sensitivity, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.05). Patients were willing to accept a reduction of 6.10 months (95% CI 3.66 to 8.54) in the predictive time horizon for a 1% increase in specificity. Discussion. Patients with chronic lung disease can articulate their preferences for the characteristics of hypothetical mortality prediction models and are highly interested in using such models as part of their care. Just as clinical care should become more patient centered, so should the characteristics of predictive models used to guide that care.

Entities:  

Keywords:  discrete choice experiment; patient-centered decision making; predictive modeling

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32532169      PMCID: PMC7395892          DOI: 10.1177/0272989X20932152

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Decis Making        ISSN: 0272-989X            Impact factor:   2.583


  29 in total

1.  Predicting early mortality in acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease using the CURB65 score.

Authors:  Catherina L Chang; Glenda D Sullivan; Noel C Karalus; Graham D Mills; John D McLachlan; Robert J Hancox
Journal:  Respirology       Date:  2011-01       Impact factor: 6.424

2.  Conjoint analysis applications in health--a checklist: a report of the ISPOR Good Research Practices for Conjoint Analysis Task Force.

Authors:  John F P Bridges; A Brett Hauber; Deborah Marshall; Andrew Lloyd; Lisa A Prosser; Dean A Regier; F Reed Johnson; Josephine Mauskopf
Journal:  Value Health       Date:  2011-04-22       Impact factor: 5.725

3.  Predicting mortality over different time horizons: which data elements are needed?

Authors:  Benjamin A Goldstein; Michael J Pencina; Maria E Montez-Rath; Wolfgang C Winkelmayer
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2016-06-29       Impact factor: 4.497

4.  Statistical Methods for the Analysis of Discrete Choice Experiments: A Report of the ISPOR Conjoint Analysis Good Research Practices Task Force.

Authors:  A Brett Hauber; Juan Marcos González; Catharina G M Groothuis-Oudshoorn; Thomas Prior; Deborah A Marshall; Charles Cunningham; Maarten J IJzerman; John F P Bridges
Journal:  Value Health       Date:  2016-05-12       Impact factor: 5.725

5.  Numeracy and Understanding of Quantitative Aspects of Predictive Models: A Pilot Study.

Authors:  Gary E Weissman; Kuldeep N Yadav; Vanessa Madden; Katherine R Courtright; Joanna L Hart; David A Asch; Marilyn M Schapira; Scott D Halpern
Journal:  Appl Clin Inform       Date:  2018-08-29       Impact factor: 2.342

Review 6.  Communicating the uncertainty of harms and benefits of medical interventions.

Authors:  Mary C Politi; Paul K J Han; Nananda F Col
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2007-09-14       Impact factor: 2.583

7.  Development, validation, and results of a risk-standardized measure of hospital 30-day mortality for patients with exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

Authors:  Peter K Lindenauer; Laura M Grosso; Changqin Wang; Yun Wang; Jerry A Krishnan; Todd A Lee; David H Au; Richard A Mularski; Susannah M Bernheim; Elizabeth E Drye
Journal:  J Hosp Med       Date:  2013-07-26       Impact factor: 2.960

8.  Specification of the utility function in discrete choice experiments.

Authors:  Marjon van der Pol; Gillian Currie; Seija Kromm; Mandy Ryan
Journal:  Value Health       Date:  2014-03       Impact factor: 5.725

Review 9.  Prognostic variables and scores identifying the end of life in COPD: a systematic review.

Authors:  Laura-Jane E Smith; Elizabeth Moore; Ifrah Ali; Liam Smeeth; Patrick Stone; Jennifer K Quint
Journal:  Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis       Date:  2017-07-31

10.  The Laboratory-Based Intermountain Validated Exacerbation (LIVE) Score Identifies Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Patients at High Mortality Risk.

Authors:  Denitza P Blagev; Dave S Collingridge; Susan Rea; Benjamin D Horne; Valerie G Press; Matthew M Churpek; Kyle A Carey; Richard A Mularski; Siyang Zeng; Mehrdad Arjomandi
Journal:  Front Med (Lausanne)       Date:  2018-06-11
View more
  3 in total

1.  Willingness to Travel for Cellular Therapy: The Influence of Follow-Up Care Location, Oncologist Continuity, and Race.

Authors:  Zachary A K Frosch; Esin C Namoglu; Nandita Mitra; Daniel J Landsburg; Sunita D Nasta; Justin E Bekelman; Raghuram Iyengar; Carmen E Guerra; Marilyn M Schapira
Journal:  JCO Oncol Pract       Date:  2021-09-15

2.  Perspectives of people living with Parkinson's disease on personalized prediction models.

Authors:  Lieneke van den Heuvel; Marjan Knippenberg; Bart Post; Marjan J Meinders; Bastiaan R Bloem; Anne M Stiggelbout
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2022-05-24       Impact factor: 3.318

Review 3.  Algorithmic prognostication in critical care: a promising but unproven technology for supporting difficult decisions.

Authors:  Gary E Weissman; Vincent X Liu
Journal:  Curr Opin Crit Care       Date:  2021-10-01       Impact factor: 3.359

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.