Thomson Mary C, Allen Larry A, Halpern Scott D, Ko Yi-An, Matlock Daniel D, Mitchell Andrea R, Moore Miranda A, Morris Alanna A, Rao Birju R, Scherer Laura D, Speight Candace D, Ubel Peter A, Dickert Neal W
Medical College of Georgia, Augusta, Georgia.
Department of Medicine, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado.
MDM Policy Pract. 2021 Oct 18;6(2):23814683211041623. doi: 10.1177/23814683211041623. eCollection 2021 Jul-Dec.
Presenting numeric data alone may result in patients underappreciating clinically significant benefits. Contextualizing statements to counter this may raise concern about absence of neutrality. These issues arose during construction of a decision aid for sacubitril-valsartan, a heart failure medication associated with a ∼3% absolute reduction in 2-year mortality that carries high out-of-pocket cost. A contextualizing statement framing this as a "pretty big benefit" was incorporated. The impact of statements like this within decision aids is unknown. This online Qualtrics survey sought to deepen understanding of benefit framing by testing the impact of varying contextualizing statements within a decision aid for sacubitril-valsartan. Participants were randomly assigned to receive one of six abbreviated versions of a decision aid for sacubitril-valsartan that varied only by contextualizing statement (ranging from strongly neutral to strongly positive and using relative and absolute risk reductions). Participants were asked to answer questions regarding the likelihood of taking the medication at a cost of $50/month and their perception of the drug's benefits. A total of 1873 participants who were demographically similar to the heart failure population completed the survey. Fifty-four percent were willing to take sacubitril-valsartan at $50/month. Each of the five experimental contextualizing statements was compared with the baseline version; no significant differences were observed in reported likelihood of taking sacubitril-valsartan. After controlling for demographics and covariates, group assignment did not predict likelihood of taking the medication. Higher income, better self-reported health status, and younger age were associated with increased likelihood of taking sacubitril-valsartan. This study used a hypothetical scenario and evaluated one method of delivering contextualizing statements. Contextualizing statements as tested within this decision aid did not affect decision making.
仅呈现数值数据可能会导致患者低估具有临床意义的益处。为应对这一问题而进行情境化表述可能会引发对缺乏中立性的担忧。这些问题在为沙库巴曲缬沙坦构建决策辅助工具时出现,沙库巴曲缬沙坦是一种心力衰竭药物,可使两年死亡率绝对降低约3%,但自付费用高昂。其中纳入了一条将此表述为“相当大的益处”的情境化陈述。此类陈述在决策辅助工具中的影响尚不清楚。这项在线Qualtrics调查旨在通过测试沙库巴曲缬沙坦决策辅助工具中不同情境化陈述的影响,加深对益处表述的理解。参与者被随机分配接受沙库巴曲缬沙坦决策辅助工具的六个简化版本之一,这些版本仅在情境化陈述方面有所不同(范围从强烈中立到强烈积极,并使用相对和绝对风险降低率)。参与者被要求回答有关每月花费50美元服用该药物的可能性以及他们对药物益处的看法的问题。共有1873名在人口统计学上与心力衰竭人群相似的参与者完成了调查。54%的人愿意每月花费50美元服用沙库巴曲缬沙坦。将五个实验性情境化陈述中的每一个与基线版本进行比较;在报告的服用沙库巴曲缬沙坦的可能性方面未观察到显著差异。在控制了人口统计学和协变量后,分组并未预测服用该药物的可能性。较高的收入、更好的自我报告健康状况和较年轻的年龄与服用沙库巴曲缬沙坦的可能性增加相关。本研究使用了一个假设情景,并评估了一种提供情境化陈述的方法。在此决策辅助工具中测试的情境化陈述并未影响决策。