Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

CLINICAL PRACTICE

To choose or not? The value of discrete-choice experiments in rheumatology

  • News & Views
  • Published:

From Nature Reviews Rheumatology

View current issue Sign up to alerts

Do you inform patients about risks and chances of success associated with different choices when treatment needs to be changed? This approach takes time and requires patient health literacy. Results from a discrete-choice experiment in scleroderma lung disease add to the debate on shared decision-making.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Bruni, C. et al. Patient preferences for the treatment of systemic sclerosis-associated interstitial lung disease: a discrete choice experiment. Rheumatology https://doi.org/10.1093/rheumatology/keac126 (2022).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Aguiar, M. et al. Co-production of randomized clinical trials with patients: a case study in autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplant for patients with scleroderma. Trials 22, 611 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Kato, M. et al. Gastrointestinal adverse effects of nintedanib and the associated risk factors in patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. Sci. Rep. 9, 12062 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Fernández-Codina, A., Walker, K. M. & Pope, J. E., Scleroderma Algorithm Group. Treatment algorithms for systemic sclerosis according to experts. Arthritis Rheumatol. 70, 1820–1828 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Smolen, J. S. et al. EULAR recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis with synthetic and biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: 2019 update. Ann. Rheum. Dis. 79, 685–699 (2020).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Kowal-Bielecka, O. et al. Update of EULAR recommendations for the treatment of systemic sclerosis. Ann. Rheum. Dis. 76, 1327–1339 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Fleischmann, R., Jairath, V., Mysler, E., Nicholls, D. & Declerck, P. Nonmedical switching from originators to biosimilars: does the nocebo effect explain treatment failures and adverse events in rheumatology and gastroenterology? Rheumatol. Ther. 7, 35–64 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. The Decision Lab. The paradox of choice https://thedecisionlab.com/reference-guide/economics/the-paradox-of-choice (2022).

  9. Peters, E., Hart, P. S. & Fraenkel, L. Informing patients: the influence of numeracy, framing, and format of side effect information on risk perceptions. Med. Decis. Making. 31, 432–436 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Harrison, M., Milbers, K., Hudson, M. & Bansback, N. Do patients and health care providers have discordant preferences about which aspects of treatments matter most? Evidence from a systematic review of discrete choice experiments. BMJ Open 7, e014719 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Rheumatology, St Joseph’s Health Care London, London, Ontario, Canada

    Janet E. Pope

Authors
  1. Janet E. Pope
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Janet E. Pope.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The author declares no competing interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pope, J.E. To choose or not? The value of discrete-choice experiments in rheumatology. Nat Rev Rheumatol 18, 433–434 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41584-022-00799-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41584-022-00799-z

  • Springer Nature Limited

Search

Navigation