Risk-attitude and patient treatment preferences

Abstract

Women’s treatment preferences for lupus nephritis vary widely even after adjusting for sociodemographic factors and disease severity. Attitude toward risk may partially explain inter-patient variability in treatment preference. The objective of this study was to examine the association between ‘risk-attitude’and patient treatment preferencesin lupus nephritis. Sixty-five premenopausal women with systemic lupus erythematosus were interviewed. Patient preferences for cyclophosphamide versus azathioprine for the treatment of lupus nephritis were ascertained using an Adaptive Conjoint Analysis questionnaire. Risk-attitude was ascertained by asking patients to choose between a pair of lotteries having the same expected value but differing in spread (the difference between the worst and best outcomes). Respondents preferring the wider spread were classified as relatively more risk-seeking and those preferring the narrower spread were classified as relatively more risk-averse. Twenty-eight percent of respondents were classified as relatively more risk-seeking. Risk-seeking women were more likely to prefer cyclophosphamidefor the treatment of lupus nephritis compared with risk-averse women [least square mean (SD) preference for cyclophosphamide 63 3 among risk-seeking women versus 55 2 among risk-averse women (P < 0.03)]. The association between risk attitude and treatment preference persisted as the probabilities of adverse events were varied to reflect the range of risks reported in the literature. Our results suggest that patients’relative risk-attitudes, as measured by a lottery task, are related to their treatment preferences. Differences in risk-attitude may help explain the inter-patient variability in treatment preferences.

Keywords

lupus nephritis patient preferences risk-attitude

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Fraenkel L , Bogardus ST , Wittink DR. Understanding patient preferences for the treatment of lupus nephritis using adaptive conjoint analysis . Med Care 2001; 39: 1203-1216 .

Corso PS , Hammitt JK. Attitudes Toward Uncertain Longevity: are Individual Risk Postures Consistent? Society for Medical Decision Making: Reno, Nevada , 1999.

Green PE , Srinivasan V. Conjoint analysis in marketing: new developments with implications for research and practice . J Marketing 1990; 54: 3-17 .

Johnson R. Choice-based Conjoint Technical Paper Vol 2002. Sawtooth Software: Sequim, WA , 1999.

Wittink DR , Walsh J. Conjoint analysis: its reliability, validity, and usefulness . Sawtooth Conference Proceedings 1988, pp 1-23 .

Balow JE , Austin HA III , Boumpas DT. Treatment and prognosis of lupus nephritis . J Rheumatol 1994; 21: 1985-1986 .

Baron J , Leshner S. How serious are expressions of protected values ? J Exp Psychol Applic 2000; 6: 183-194 .

Austin HA , Boumpas DT. Treatment of lupus nephritis . Semin Nephrol 1996; 16: 527-535 .

Felson DT , Anderson J. Evidence for the superiority of immunosuppressive drugs and prednisone over prednisone alone in lupus nephritis. Results of a pooled analysis . New Engl J Med 1984; 311: 1528-1533 .

10.

Klippel JH , Austin III HA , Balow JE et al. Studies of immunosuppressive drugs in the treatment of lupus nephritis . Rheum Dis Clin N Am 1987; 13: 47-56 .

11.

Steinberg AD , Steinberg SC. Long-term preservation of renal function in patients with lupus nephritis receiving treatment that includes cyclophosphamide versus those treated with prednisone only . Arthritis Rheum 1991; 34: 945-950 .

12.

Steinberg AD , Muir J , Scott DE , Gourley MF. Approach to lupus nephritis based upon randomized trials . Contrib Nephrol 1992; 99: 46-54 .

13.

Fries JF , Spitz PW , Williams CA , Bloch DA , Singh G , Hubert HB. A toxicity index for comparison of side effects among different drugs . Arthritis Rheum 1990; 33: 121-130 .

14.

Gourely MF. Immune suppressive medications: their benefits and side effects . Lupus News 1998; 18: 12-13 .

15.

Katz RS. Imuran, Cytoxan and Related Drugs. Lupus Foundation of America , 1995.

16.

Arthritis Today’s Drug Guide. Arthritis Foundation , 1999.

17.

Mazur DJ , Hickam DH. Interpretation of graphic data by patients in a general medicine clinic . J Gen Intern Med 1990; 5: 402-405 .

18.

Mazur DJ , Hickam DH. Treatment preferences of patients and physicians: influences of summary data when framing effects are controlled . Med Decision Making 1990; 10: 2-5 .

19.

Mazur DJ , Hickam DH. Patients’ interpretations of probability terms . [See comments.] J Gen Intern Med 1991; 6: 237-240 .

20.

Mazur DJ , Merz JF. How the manner of presentation of data influences older patients in determining their treatment preferences . J Am Geriatr Soc 1993; 41: 223-228 .

21.

Mazur DJ , Hickam DH. Patients’ and physicians’ interpretations of graphic data displays . Med Decision Making 1993; 13: 59-63 .

22.

Ende J , Kazis L , Ash A , Moskowitz MA. Measuring patients’desire for autonomy: decision making and information-seeking preferences among medical patients . [See comments.] J Gen Intern Med 1989; 4: 23-30 .

23.

Fraenkel L , Bogardus S , Concato J , Felson D. Preference for disclosure of information among patients with rheumatoid arthritis . Arthritis Care Res 2001; 45: 136-139 .

24.

Degner LF , Sloan JA. Decision making during serious illness: what role do patients really want to play ? J Clin Epidemiol 1992; 45: 941-950 .

25.

SawtoothSoftware Inc. Creating an ACA questionnaire.In: Metegrano M (ed.) ACA System: Version 4.0. Sawtooth Software: Sequim, WA , 1996.

26.

Johnson RM. Adaptive conjointanalysis . Sawtooth Software Conference Proceedings, 1987, pp 253-265 .

27.

Nightingale SD. Risk preference and laboratory test selection . J Gen Intern Med 1987; 2: 25-28 .

28.

Eraker SA , Sox HCJ. Assesment of patients’ preferences for therapeutic outcomes . Med Decision Making 1981; 1: 29-39 .

29.

McNeil BJ , Weichselbaum R , Pauker SG. Fallacy of the five-year survival in lung cancer . New Engl J Med 1978; 299: 1397-1401 .

30.

Stiggelbout AM , Kiebert GM , Kievit J , Leer JW , Stoter G , de Haes JC. Utility assessment in cancer patients: adjustment of time tradeoff scores for the utility of life years and comparison with standard gamble scores . Med Decision Making 1994; 14: 82-90 .

31.

Verhoef LCG , Haan AFJd , Daal WAJv. Risk attitude in gambles with years of life: empirical support for prospect theory . Med Decision Making 1994; 14: 194-200 .

32.

Wittink DR , Bergenstuen T. Forecasting with conjoint analysis. In: Armstrong JS (ed.). Principles of Forecasting: a Handbook for Researchers and Practitioners. Kluwer Academic Publishers: Norwell, MA , 1999.

33.

Tversky A , Kahneman D. Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases . Science 1974; 185: 1124-1131 .

34.

Fraenkel L , Bogardus S , Concato J , Felson D. Risk communication in rheumatoid arthritis . J Rheumatol (in press).

35.

Ho M , Lavery B , Pullar T. The risk of treatment: a study of rheumatoid arthritis patients’ attitudes . Br J Rheumatol 1998; 37: 459-460 .

36.

O’Brien BJ , Elswood J , Calin A. Willingness to accept risk in the treatment of rheumatic disease . J Epidemiol Community Health 1990; 44: 249-252 .

37.

Pullar T , Wright V , Feely M. What do patients and rheumatologists regard as an ‘acceptable’ risk in the treatment of rheumatic disease ? [See comments.] Br J Rheumatol 1990; 29: 215-218 .