Abstract
Objectives:
To elicit and value patient preferences for the processes and outcomes of surgical management of stress urinary incontinence in women.
Design: A discrete choice experiment survey to elicit preferences for type of anaesthesia, post-op time, treatment success, adverse events, impact on daily activities and cost. An experimental design generated 40 choice tasks, and each respondent completed one block of 10 and two validity tests. Analysis was by multinomial logistical regression.
Setting: N=21 UK hospitals
Participants: N=325 adult women who were a sub-sample of those randomised to the SIMS clinical trial.
Outcomes: Patient preferences; valuation obtained using willingness to pay
Results:
N=227/325 (70%) returned a questionnaire, and 94% of those completed all choice tasks. Respondents preferred general anaesthesia, shorter recovery times, improved stress urinary incontinence symptoms and avoidance of adverse events. Women were willing to pay, mean (95% CI), £76(£33 to £119) per day of reduction in recovery time following surgery. They valued increases in Patient Global Impression of Improvement, ranging from £8,173 (£5,459
to £10,887) for “improved” to £11,706 (£8,267 to £15,144) for “very much improved”, compared to no improvement. This was offset by negative values attached to complications ranging between £-8,022 (£-10,661 to £-5,383) and £-10,632 (£-14,077 to £-7,187) for the avoidance of various complications. Avoidance of daily activities had a negative impact on preferences, with willingness to pay ranging from £-967 (£-2,199 to £266) for rarely avoiding
activities to £-5,338 (£-7258 to £-3417) for frequently avoiding daily activities compared to no avoidance.
Conclusion: This discrete choice experiment demonstrates that patients place considerable value on improvement in stress urinary incontinence symptoms and avoidance of treatment complications. These trade-offs should be considered within shared decision making. The willingness to pay values from this study can be used in future cost-benefit analyses.
To elicit and value patient preferences for the processes and outcomes of surgical management of stress urinary incontinence in women.
Design: A discrete choice experiment survey to elicit preferences for type of anaesthesia, post-op time, treatment success, adverse events, impact on daily activities and cost. An experimental design generated 40 choice tasks, and each respondent completed one block of 10 and two validity tests. Analysis was by multinomial logistical regression.
Setting: N=21 UK hospitals
Participants: N=325 adult women who were a sub-sample of those randomised to the SIMS clinical trial.
Outcomes: Patient preferences; valuation obtained using willingness to pay
Results:
N=227/325 (70%) returned a questionnaire, and 94% of those completed all choice tasks. Respondents preferred general anaesthesia, shorter recovery times, improved stress urinary incontinence symptoms and avoidance of adverse events. Women were willing to pay, mean (95% CI), £76(£33 to £119) per day of reduction in recovery time following surgery. They valued increases in Patient Global Impression of Improvement, ranging from £8,173 (£5,459
to £10,887) for “improved” to £11,706 (£8,267 to £15,144) for “very much improved”, compared to no improvement. This was offset by negative values attached to complications ranging between £-8,022 (£-10,661 to £-5,383) and £-10,632 (£-14,077 to £-7,187) for the avoidance of various complications. Avoidance of daily activities had a negative impact on preferences, with willingness to pay ranging from £-967 (£-2,199 to £266) for rarely avoiding
activities to £-5,338 (£-7258 to £-3417) for frequently avoiding daily activities compared to no avoidance.
Conclusion: This discrete choice experiment demonstrates that patients place considerable value on improvement in stress urinary incontinence symptoms and avoidance of treatment complications. These trade-offs should be considered within shared decision making. The willingness to pay values from this study can be used in future cost-benefit analyses.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Article number | e066157 |
| Pages (from-to) | e066157 |
| Number of pages | 27 |
| Journal | BMJ Open |
| Volume | 13 |
| Issue number | 8 |
| Early online date | 29 Aug 2023 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 29 Aug 2023 |
Bibliographical note
Funding:The study was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment Programme (project number: 12/127/157). The full project report is available from the funder’s website: https://www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk/hta/BTSA6148%23/abstract. The full citation for the funder report is: Abdel-Fattah M, Cooper D, Davidson T, Kilonzo M, Boyers D, Bhal K, et al. Single-incision mini-slings versus standard synthetic mid-urethral slings for surgical treatment of stress urinary incontinence in women: The SIMS RCT. Health Technol Assess 2022;26(47). The Health Economics Research Unit and Health Services Research Unit are both funded by the Chief Scientist’s Office (CSO) of the Scottish government health directorates. The SIMS trial was registered as: ISRCTN93264234.
Data Availability Statement
Data are available upon reasonable request. Data are available upon reasonable request by contacting the corresponding author.Keywords
- Surgery
- Urinary Incontinence
- Health policy
- Health Economics
- Patient preference
Access to Document
- Boyers_etal_BMJO_Patient_Preferences_For_VoR
© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/