Using a discrete choice experiment to develop a decision aid tool to inform the management of persistent pain in pharmacy: a protocol for a randomised feasibility study

Luis Enrique Loría-Rebolledo, Mandy Ryan, Christine Bond, Terry Porteous, Peter Murchie, Rosalind Adam, Luis Enrique Loría-Rebolledo, Mandy Ryan, Christine Bond, Terry Porteous, Peter Murchie, Rosalind Adam

Abstract

Introduction: In an era of personalised healthcare, it has become increasingly important to elicit individual-level preferences. While discrete choice experiments (DCEs) are widely used to measure patient preferences in the delivery of healthcare, the focus has been sample-level analysis. Using the DCE methodology, this project has designed a digital decision aid tool (DAT) with the potential to estimate individual preferences in real time to inform clinical consultation decisions in persistent pain management.

Methods: Using a feasibility randomised control trial, this study aims to assess the feasibility of using this Understanding Persistent Pain (UPP) DAT in a pharmacy-based clinical setting and to test processes for a future definite randomised trial. Community and practice-based pharmacists (up to 10) will be recruited in The National Health Service (NHS) Grampian and trained in the use of the digital UPP DAT. Pharmacists will recruit up to 60 patients who are living with persistent pain. Patients will be randomised to one of two groups: using the UPP DAT or usual care. Pharmacists will follow-up patients as needed according to clinical need and following standard practice. DCE response data collected by the UPP DAT will be analysed using the penalised logit model, allowing estimation of individual preferences in real time. We will follow-up pharmacists and patients who use the UPP DAT to gather feedback on their experiences.

Ethics and dissemination: This study received ethical approval from the North of Scotland Research Ethics Committee (21/NS/0059) and received Research & Development Management Permission to proceed from NHS Grampian (2021UA003E). The study has been registered in the ClinicalTrials.gov database. Findings will be disseminated in peer-reviewed publications, presentations and newsletters and made available in the University of Aberdeen and Pharmacy Research UK websites. Participants gave informed consent to participate in the study before taking part.

Trial registration number: NCT05102578; clinicaltrials.gov.

Keywords: HEALTH ECONOMICS; PAIN MANAGEMENT; PRIMARY CARE.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: None declared.

© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Example choice from the Understanding Persistent Pain Decision Aid Tool (UPP DAT).
Figure 2
Figure 2
Example of personalised report from the Understanding Persistent Pain Decision Aid Tool (UPP DAT).

References

    1. Carmona C, Crutwell J, Burnham M, et al. . Shared decision-making: summary of NICE guidance. BMJ 2021;373:n1430. 10.1136/bmj.n1430
    1. Journal BM, Drug and Therapeutics Bulletin . An introduction to patient decision AIDS. BMJ 2013;347:f4147. 10.1136/bmj.f4147
    1. Stacey D, Légaré F, Lewis K, et al. . Decision AIDS for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017;4:CD001431. 10.1002/14651858.CD001431.pub5
    1. Sepucha KR, Borkhoff CM, Lally J, et al. . Establishing the effectiveness of patient decision AIDS: key constructs and measurement instruments. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2013;13 Suppl 2:S12. 10.1186/1472-6947-13-S2-S12
    1. McCaffery KJ, Holmes-Rovner M, Smith SK, et al. . Addressing health literacy in patient decision AIDS. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2013;13:1–14. 10.1186/1472-6947-13-S2-S10
    1. Llewellyn-Thomas HA, Crump RT. Decision support for patients: values clarification and preference elicitation. Med Care Res Rev 2013;70:50S–79. 10.1177/1077558712461182
    1. Munro S, Stacey D, Lewis KB, et al. . Choosing treatment and screening options congruent with values: do decision AIDS help? Sub-analysis of a systematic review. Patient Educ Couns 2016;99:491–500. 10.1016/j.pec.2015.10.026
    1. Ryan M, Gerard K, Amaya-Amaya M. Using discrete choice experiments to value health and health care. Springer Science & Business Media 2007. 10.1007/978-1-4020-5753-3
    1. de Bekker-Grob EW, Ryan M, Gerard K. Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature. Health Econ 2012;21:145–72. 10.1002/hec.1697
    1. Soekhai V, de Bekker-Grob EW, Ellis AR, et al. . Discrete choice experiments in health economics: past, present and future. Pharmacoeconomics 2019;37:201–26. 10.1007/s40273-018-0734-2
    1. Lancaster KJ. A new approach to consumer theory. J Polit Econ 1966;74:132–57. 10.1086/259131
    1. McFadden D. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior, 1973.
    1. Dowsey MM, Scott A, Nelson EA, et al. . Using discrete choice experiments as a decision aid in total knee arthroplasty: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial. Trials 2016;17:1–10. 10.1186/s13063-016-1536-5
    1. Hazlewood GS, Marshall DA, Barber CEH, et al. . Using a discrete-choice experiment in a decision aid to nudge patients towards value-concordant treatment choices in rheumatoid arthritis: a proof-of-concept study. Patient Prefer Adherence 2020;14:829–38. 10.2147/PPA.S221897
    1. Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network . (sign). management of chronic pain 2013;136.
    1. Jackson T, Pope L, Nagasaka T, et al. . The impact of threatening information about pain on coping and pain tolerance. Br J Health Psychol 2005;10:441–51. 10.1348/135910705X27587
    1. Burton CD, Entwistle VA, Elliott AM, et al. . The value of different aspects of person-centred care: a series of discrete choice experiments in people with long-term conditions. BMJ Open 2017;7:e015689–015689. 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-015689
    1. Kløjgaard ME, Manniche C, Pedersen LB, et al. . Patient preferences for treatment of low back pain-a discrete choice experiment. Value Health 2014;17:390–6. 10.1016/j.jval.2014.01.005
    1. Meeus M, Nijs J, Van Oosterwijck J, et al. . Pain physiology education improves pain beliefs in patients with chronic fatigue syndrome compared with pacing and self-management education: a double-blind randomized controlled trial. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2010;91:1153–9. 10.1016/j.apmr.2010.04.020
    1. Alamo MM, Moral RR, Pérula de Torres LA. Evaluation of a patient-centred approach in generalized musculoskeletal chronic pain/fibromyalgia patients in primary care. Patient Educ Couns 2002;48:23–31. 10.1016/S0738-3991(02)00095-2
    1. Robinson ME, Brown JL, George SZ, et al. . Multidimensional success criteria and expectations for treatment of chronic pain: the patient perspective. Pain Med 2005;6:336–45. 10.1111/j.1526-4637.2005.00059.x
    1. O'Brien EM, Staud RM, Hassinger AD, et al. . Patient-Centered perspective on treatment outcomes in chronic pain. Pain Med 2010;11:6–15. 10.1111/j.1526-4637.2009.00685.x
    1. Bruhn H, Bond CM, Elliott AM, et al. . Pharmacist-Led management of chronic pain in primary care: results from a randomised controlled exploratory trial. BMJ Open 2013;3. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2012-002361. [Epub ahead of print: 05 04 2013].
    1. Neilson AR, Bruhn H, Bond CM, et al. . Pharmacist-Led management of chronic pain in primary care: costs and benefits in a pilot randomised controlled trial. BMJ Open 2015;5:e006874. 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-006874
    1. Bruhn H, Blyth A, Elliott A, et al. . Pharmacist-Led management of chronic pain in primary care: the PIPPC study. Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health 2011;65:A13–14. 10.1136/jech.2011.143586.30
    1. Bell J, Dziekan G, Pollack C, et al. . Self-Care in the twenty first century: a vital role for the pharmacist. Adv Ther 2016;33:1691–703. 10.1007/s12325-016-0395-5
    1. Stibbs MB, Gunnell K, Jacklin S. How to support patients with acute pain in community pharmacy. The Pharmaceutical Journal 2019. 10.1211/PJ.2019.20207185
    1. NICE . Community pharmacies: promoting health and wellbeing 2018.
    1. Atkinson TJ, Gulum AH, Forkum WG. The future of pain pharmacy: driven by need. Integr Pharm Res Pract 2016;5:33. 10.2147/IPRP.S63824
    1. Elliott RA, Boyd MJ, Waring J. Department of health policy research programme project: understanding and appraising the new medicines service in the NHS in England (029/0124). England. Nottingham University School of Pharmacy 2014:1–120.
    1. Thabane L, Lancaster G. A guide to the reporting of protocols of pilot and feasibility trials. Pilot Feasibility Stud 2019;5:1–3. 10.1186/s40814-019-0423-8
    1. Chan A-W, Tetzlaff JM, Gøtzsche PC, et al. . Spirit 2013 explanation and elaboration: guidance for protocols of clinical trials. BMJ 2013;346:e7586. 10.1136/bmj.e7586
    1. Duncan C, Macleod AD. Video consultations in ordinary and extraordinary times. Pract Neurol 2020;20:396–403. 10.1136/practneurol-2020-002579
    1. Wherton J, Greenhalgh T, Scottish Government . Evaluation of the attend anywhere/near me video consulting service in Scotland, 2019-20, 2020.
    1. Wherton J, Greenhalgh T, Shaw SE. Expanding video consultation services at PACE and scale in Scotland during the COVID-19 pandemic: national mixed methods case study. J Med Internet Res 2021;23:e31374. 10.2196/31374
    1. Wherton J, Greenhalgh T. Evaluation of the near me video consulting service in Scotland during COVID-19. Edinburgh: Scottish Government, 2020.
    1. Whale R. Msk and chronic pain together course.. Available: [Accessed May 2022].
    1. NICE . Nice decision AIDS: process guide, 2018.
    1. Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network . Sign. Management of chronic pain: A national clinical guideline, 2013.
    1. Chua GN, Ryan M, Bond C. Promoting shared decision making in patient-pharmacist interactions: a systematic review of decision aid tools and discrete choice experiments in chronic pain management. International Journal of Pharmacy Practice 2019;27:20–1. 10.4321/s1886-36552008000200001
    1. Ryan M. Understanding Chronic Pain - A qualitative study exploring patient and healthcare professionals experience with chronic pain management in primary care, 2018. Available:
    1. ChoiceMetrics. Ngene 1.2 User Manual & Reference Guide. 2018, 2018.
    1. Bech M, Kjaer T, Lauridsen J. Does the number of choice sets matter? results from a web survey applying a discrete choice experiment. Health Econ 2011;20:273–86. 10.1002/hec.1587
    1. Reed Johnson F, Lancsar E, Marshall D, et al. . Constructing experimental designs for discrete-choice experiments: report of the ISPOR conjoint analysis experimental design good research practices Task force. Value Health 2013;16:3–13. 10.1016/j.jval.2012.08.2223
    1. Louviere JJ, Hensher DA, Swait J. Stated choice methods: analysis and applications in marketing, transportation and environmental valuation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.
    1. Dolan P, Layard R, Metcalfe R. Measuring subjective well-being for public policy 2011. 10.1017/S0047279411000833
    1. EuroQol Group . EuroQol--a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy 1990;16:199–208. 10.1016/0168-8510(90)90421-9
    1. Manraj K, Saurabh M. Chronic pain grade questionnaire. J Physiother 2013;59:60-X. 10.1016/S1836-9553(13)70153-X
    1. O'Connor AM. Validation of a decisional conflict scale. Med Decis Making 1995;15:25–30. 10.1177/0272989X9501500105
    1. McFadden D, Train K. Mixed MNL models for discrete response. J Appl Econ 2000;15:447–70. 10.1002/1099-1255(200009/10)15:5<447::AID-JAE570>;2-1
    1. Firth D. Bias reduction of maximum likelihood estimates. Biometrika 1993;80:27–38. 10.1093/biomet/80.1.27
    1. Kessels R, Jones B, Goos P. Using Firth’s method for model estimation and market segmentation based on choice data. J Choice Model 2019;31:1–21. 10.1016/j.jocm.2018.12.002
    1. Ritchie J, Lewis J, Nicholls CM. Qualitative research practice: a guide for social science students and researchers. sage, 2013.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorer och medarbetare

Medicinska tillstånd

Läkemedelsinterventioner

3
Prenumerera