Physician-Specific Maximum Acceptable Risk in Personalized Medicine: Implications for Medical Decision Making

Marco Boeri, Alan J. McMichael, Joseph P. M. Kane, Francis A. O’Neill and Frank Kee
Additional contact information
Alan J. McMichael: UKCRC Centre of Excellence for Public Health, Queen’s University Belfast, Royal Victoria Hospital, Belfast, Antrim, UK
Joseph P. M. Kane: Institute of Neuroscience, Newcastle University, Campus of Ageing and Vitality, Newcastle Upon Tyne, England, UK
Francis A. O’Neill: UKCRC Centre of Excellence for Public Health, Queen’s University Belfast, Royal Victoria Hospital, Belfast, Antrim, UK
Frank Kee: UKCRC Centre of Excellence for Public Health, Queen’s University Belfast, Royal Victoria Hospital, Belfast, Antrim, UK

Medical Decision Making, 2018, vol. 38, issue 5, 593-600

Abstract: Background. In discrete-choice experiments (DCEs), respondents are presented with a series of scenarios and asked to select their preferred choice. In clinical decision making, DCEs allow one to calculate the maximum acceptable risk (MAR) that a respondent is willing to accept for a one-unit increase in treatment efficacy. Most published studies report the average MAR for the whole sample, without conveying any information about heterogeneity. For a sample of psychiatrists prescribing drugs for a series of hypothetical patients with schizophrenia, this article demonstrates how heterogeneity accounted for in the DCE modeling can be incorporated in the derivation of the MAR. Methods. Psychiatrists were given information about a group of patients’ responses to treatment on the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) and the weight gain associated with the treatment observed in a series of 26 vignettes. We estimated a random parameters logit (RPL) model with treatment choice as the dependent variable. Results. Results from the RPL were used to compute the MAR for the overall sample. This was found to be equal to 4%, implying that, overall, psychiatrists were willing to accept a 4% increase in the risk of an adverse event to obtain a one-unit improvement of symptoms – measured on the PANSS. Heterogeneity was then incorporated in the MAR calculation, finding that MARs ranged between 0.5 and 9.5 across the sample of psychiatrists. Limitations. We provided psychiatrists with hypothetical scenarios, and their MAR may change when making decisions for actual patients. Conclusions. This analysis aimed to show how it is possible to calculate physician-specific MARs and to discuss how MAR heterogeneity could have implications for medical practice.

Keywords: discrete choice experiments; maximum-acceptable risk; personalized medicine; preference analysis; psychiatry (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2018
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X18758279 (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:38:y:2018:i:5:p:593-600

DOI: 10.1177/0272989X18758279

Access Statistics for this article

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