Quantifying the impact of taking medicines for primary prevention: a time-trade off study to elicit direct treatment disutility in the UK
Open Access
Abstract
Background: Direct treatment disutility (DTD) represents an individual’s disutility associated with the inconvenience of taking medicine over a long period of time. Objectives: The main aim of this study was to elicit DTD values for taking a statin or a bisphosphonate for primary prevention. A secondary aim was to understand factors which influence DTD values. Methods: Design: We used a cross-sectional study consisting of time-trade off exercises embedded within online surveys. Respondents were asked to compare a one-off pill (‘Medicine A’) assumed to have no inconvenience and a daily pill (‘Medicine B’) over 10 years (statins) or 5 years (bisphosphonates). Setting: Individuals from National Health Service (NHS) primary care and the general population were surveyed using an online panel company. Participants: Two types of participants were recruited. First, a purposive sample of patients with experience of taking a statin (n=260) or bisphosphonate (n=100) were recruited from an NHS sampling frame. Patients needed to be aged over 30, have experience of taking the medicine of interest and have no diagnosis of dementia or of using dementia drugs. Second, a demographically balanced sample of members of the public were recruited for statins (n=376) and bisphosphonates (n=359). Primary and secondary outcome measures: Primary outcome was mean DTD. Regression analysis explored factors which could influence DTD values. Results: A total of 879 respondents were included for analysis (514 for statins and 365 for bisphosphonates). The majority of respondents reported a disutility associated with medicine use. Mean DTD for statins was 0.034 and for bisphosphonates 0.067, respectively. Respondent characteristics including age and sex did not influence DTD. Experience of bisphosphonate-use reduced reported disutilities. Conclusions: Statins and bisphosphonates have a quantifiable DTD. The size of estimated disutilities suggest they are likely to be important for cost-effectiveness, particularly in individuals at low-risk when treated for primary prevention.Keywords
Funding Information
- National Institute for Health Research (15/12/22)
This publication has 37 references indexed in Scilit:
- Cost-Effectiveness of Statin Therapy for Primary Prevention in a Low-Cost Statin EraCirculation, 2011
- Statin treatment for primary prevention of vascular disease: whom to treat? Cost-effectiveness analysisBMJ, 2011
- Multiple imputation using chained equations: Issues and guidance for practiceStatistics in Medicine, 2010
- Variation in the Net Benefit of Aggressive Cardiovascular Risk Factor Control Across the US Population of Patients With Diabetes MellitusArchives of internal medicine (1960), 2010
- Interpretations of Utility and Their Implications for the Valuation of HealthThe Economic Journal, 2007
- Making sense of patient priorities: applying discrete choice methods in primary care using 'think aloud' techniqueFamily Practice, 2007
- Identifying and analysing dominant preferences in discrete choice experiments: An application in health careJournal of Economic Psychology, 2002
- Back to Bentham? Explorations of Experienced UtilityThe Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1997
- Utility approach to measuring health-related quality of lifeJournal of Chronic Diseases, 1987
- The utility of different health states as perceived by the general publicJournal of Chronic Diseases, 1978