Randomized Trial of Presenting Absolute v. Relative Risk Reduction in the Elicitation of Patient Values for Heart Disease Prevention With Conjoint Analysis

Jennifer M. Griffith, Carmen L. Lewis, Sarah Hawley, Stacey L. Sheridan and Michael P. Pignone
Additional contact information
Jennifer M. Griffith: Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, jgriffith@srph.tamhsc.edu
Carmen L. Lewis: School of Medicine, Division of General Internal Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina
Sarah Hawley: Center for Behavioral and Decision Sciences in Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
Stacey L. Sheridan: School of Medicine, Division of General Internal Medicine University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina
Michael P. Pignone: Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina

Medical Decision Making, 2009, vol. 29, issue 2, 167-174

Abstract: Background . The authors performed a randomized controlled trial to test the effect of 2 different formats of risk reduction information when using conjoint analysis to elicit values about heart disease prevention. Methods . Participants ages 30 to 75 were enrolled and presented the same hypothetical scenario: a person with a 13% ten-year risk of heart disease. Participants then worked through a values elicitation exercise using conjoint analysis, making pairwise comparisons of hypothetical treatments that differed on 5 attributes. For the attribute ``ability to reduce heart attacks,'' participants were randomized to receive either absolute risk reduction (ARR) or relative risk reduction (RRR) information. Participants selected which attribute they felt was most important. Participants' responses to the pairwise comparisons were then used to generate their most important attribute using ordinary least squares regression. Outcomes included differences between groups in the proportion choosing and generating ability to reduce heart attacks as the most important attribute. Results . In total, 113 participants completed the study: mean age was 51, 29% were male, 52% were white, and 42% were African American. The proportion who selected the ability to reduce heart attacks as the most important treatment attribute did not differ significantly (64% RRR; 53% ARR, Fisher's P = 0.26). For the conjoint-generated most important attribute, those receiving the RRR version were significantly more likely to generate ability to reduce heart attacks as the most important attribute (59% RRR; 35% ARR, Fisher's P = 0.01). Discussion . Risk presentation format appears to affect the perceived value of different treatment attributes generated from conjoint analysis.

Keywords: conjoint analysis; risk reduction; heart disease prevention. (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2009
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (2)

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X08327492 (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:sae:medema:v:29:y:2009:i:2:p:167-174

DOI: 10.1177/0272989X08327492

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Medical Decision Making
Bibliographic data for series maintained by SAGE Publications ().