首页> 外文期刊>BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making >Measuring preferences for analgesic treatment for cancer pain: How do African-Americans and Whites perform on choice-based conjoint (CBC) analysis experiments?
【24h】

Measuring preferences for analgesic treatment for cancer pain: How do African-Americans and Whites perform on choice-based conjoint (CBC) analysis experiments?

机译:测量针对癌症疼痛的止痛药的偏爱:非裔美国人和白人如何在基于选择的联合(CBC)分析实验中进行?

获取原文
       

摘要

Background Conjoint Analysis (CA) can serve as an important tool to study health disparities and unique factors underlying decision-making in diverse subgroups. However, methodological advancements are needed in exploiting this application of CA. We compared the internal and external predictive validity and inter-temporal stability of Choice-based-Conjoint (CBC) analysis between African-Americans and Whites in the clinical context of preferences for analgesic treatment for cancer pain. Methods We conducted a prospective study with repeated-measures at two time-points (T1 = baseline; T2 = 3-months). African-Americans (n = 102); and Whites (n = 139) with cancer-related pain were recruited from outpatient oncology clinics in Philadelphia. Informed by pilot work, a computer-assisted CBC experiment was developed using 5 attributes of analgesic treatment: type of analgesic; expected pain relief; type of side-effects; severity of side-effects; and out-of-pocket cost. The design included 2 choice alternatives, 12 random tasks, 2 holdout tasks, and maximum of 6 levels per attribute. The internal and external predictive validity of CBC was estimated using Root Likelihood (RLH) and Mean Absolute Error (MAE), respectively. Inter-temporal stability was assessed using Cohen’s kappa. Results Whites predominantly traded based on “pain relief” whereas African-Americans traded based on “type of side-effects”. At both time-points, the internal validity (RLH) was slightly higher for Whites than for African-Americans. The RLH for African-Americans improved at T2, possibly due to the learning effect. Lexicographic (dominant) behavior was observed in 29% of choice datasets; Whites were more likely than African-Americans to engage in a lexicographic behavior (60% vs. 40%). External validity (MAE) was slightly better for African-Americans than for Whites at both time-points (MAE: T1?=?3.04% for African-Americans and 4.02% for Whites; T2?=?8.04% for African-Americans; 10.24% for Whites). At T2, the MAE increased for both groups possibly reflecting an increase in the complexity of pain treatment decision-making based on expectations (T1) as opposed to reality (T2). The inter-temporal stability was fair for CBC attributes between T1 and T2 (kappa?=?0.28, 95% CI: 0.24-0.32) and was not predicted by demographics including race. Conclusions While we found slight group differences, overall the internal and external predictive validity of CBC was comparable between African-Americans and Whites. We discuss some areas to investigate and improve internal and external predictive validity of CBC experiments.
机译:背景联合分析(CA)可以作为研究健康差异和不同亚组决策基础的独特因素的重要工具。但是,在利用CA的这种应用程序方面需要方法上的进步。我们比较了在偏爱使用止痛药治疗癌症疼痛的临床背景下,非裔美国人和白人之间基于选择的联合(CBC)分析的内部和外部预测效度和时间跨度稳定性。方法我们在两个时间点(T1 =基线; T2 = 3个月)进行了重复测量的前瞻性研究。非裔美国人(n = 102);从费城的门诊肿瘤诊所招募了患有癌症相关疼痛的白人(n = 139)。在试点工作的指导下,计算机辅助CBC实验使用了5种镇痛药的属性进行开发:预期的疼痛缓解;副作用类型;副作用的严重程度;和自付费用。该设计包括2个选择方案,12个随机任务,2个保持任务,每个属性最多6个级别。分别使用根似然法(RLH)和平均绝对误差(MAE)评估CBC的内部和外部预测有效性。使用Cohen的kappa评估了跨时稳定性。结果白人主要根据“疼痛缓解”进行交易,而非洲裔美国人则根据“副作用类型”进行交易。在这两个时间点上,白人的内部有效性(RLH)略高于非裔美国人。非裔美国人的RLH在T2有所改善,可能是由于学习效果。在29%的选择数据集中观察到了词典编排(主要)行为。白人比非裔美国人更有可能从事词典编纂行为(60%比40%)。在这两个时间点上,非洲裔美国人的外部有效性(MAE)均比白人好(MAE:非洲裔美国人的T1?=?3.04%,白人的T1?=?4.02%;非洲裔美国人的T2?=?8.04%;白人为10.24%)。在T2时,两组的MAE均增加,这可能反映了基于期望(T1)而不是现实(T2)的疼痛治疗决策的复杂性增加。时间跨度的稳定性对于T1和T2之间的CBC属性是公平的(kappa =?0.28,95%CI:0.24-0.32),而人口统计(包括种族)并未预测到。结论尽管我们发现群体之间存在细微差异,但总体而言,CBC的内部和外部预测有效性在非洲裔美国人和白人之间是可比的。我们讨论了一些领域,以研究和提高CBC实验的内部和外部预测效度。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号