ACR Meeting Abstracts

ACR Meeting Abstracts

  • Meetings
    • ACR Convergence 2024
    • ACR Convergence 2023
    • 2023 ACR/ARP PRSYM
    • ACR Convergence 2022
    • ACR Convergence 2021
    • ACR Convergence 2020
    • 2020 ACR/ARP PRSYM
    • 2019 ACR/ARP Annual Meeting
    • 2018-2009 Meetings
    • Download Abstracts
  • Keyword Index
  • Advanced Search
  • Your Favorites
    • Favorites
    • Login
    • View and print all favorites
    • Clear all your favorites
  • ACR Meetings

Abstract Number: 2329

Describe Treatments As ‘new’ or ‘old’ at Your Peril: Influences on Patient Decision Making

Mark Harrison1,2, Carlo Marra3 and Nick Bansback4,5, 1Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 2Centre for Health Evaluation and Outcomes Sciences, St Paul's Hospital, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 3School of Pharmacy, Memorial University, St John's, NF, Canada, 4St. Paul's Hospital, Centre for Health Evaluation and Outcome Sciences, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 5School of Population and Public Health, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada

Meeting: 2015 ACR/ARHP Annual Meeting

Date of first publication: September 29, 2015

Keywords: Communication, Decision analysis, patient preferences and treatment options

  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Print
Session Information

Date: Tuesday, November 10, 2015

Title: Health Services Research Poster III: Patient Reported Outcomes, Patient Education and Preferences

Session Type: ACR Poster Session C

Session Time: 9:00AM-11:00AM

Background/Purpose: Using an example of a new drug for rheumatoid arthritis which offers comparable effectiveness and side-effect point estimates to older drugs, we explore preferences for treatments labelled ‘new’. We then examine the persistence of preferences once ambiguity in the evidence base due to it being new is introduced.

Methods: We randomized a representative sample of the Canadian general population to one of three discrete choice experiment (DCE) designs which sought choices between hypothetical treatments for rheumatoid arthritis based on different levels of 7 attributes: route and frequency of administration, chance of benefit, serious and minor side-effects and life expectancy, and uncertainty in benefit and side-effect estimates. The DCEs differed in whether the treatment was 1) described as new (recently available) or older (available 5 or 10 years), 2) whether a qualitative description describing the confidence in the evidence was included instead, or 3) both the length of time available and confidence in evidence was provided. We collected characteristics of respondents including the self-reported Innovativeness scale, Subjective Numeracy Scale, and Health Risk Attitude Scale.

Results: 2837 people responded to the survey. Overall, all 6 consistent attributes (route and frequency of administration, chance of benefit, serious and minor side-effects and life expectancy) influenced preferences for treatment. An overall significant preference for less ambiguity (more confidence) in benefit and side-effect estimates was observed, but there was no preference for a treatment labelled ‘new’ or ‘old’. However, in a subgroup analysis, early adopters (n=173) had a significant preference for ‘newer’ treatments relative to old treatments (B=0.157, p=0.045), preferences comparable in magnitude to preferences for reducing the risk of (rare) serious side-effects in this group. While early adopters valued reducing ambiguity in the evidence base consistently with later adopters, when the newness of the drug was combined with ambiguity in the evidence base, preferences for ‘new’ treatments diminished. There was evidence of a dose-response relationship across innovator categories.

Conclusion: Preferences for innovation in health care appear to exist for some potential groups of patients. However, when presented with the implications of new treatments, namely increased ambiguity in the evidence base, these preferences diminished. When communicating with patients, physicians should either avoid describing whether treatments are ‘new’, or be mindful to qualify the implications of a ‘new’ treatment in terms of ambiguity in estimates of risks and benefits.


Disclosure: M. Harrison, None; C. Marra, None; N. Bansback, None.

To cite this abstract in AMA style:

Harrison M, Marra C, Bansback N. Describe Treatments As ‘new’ or ‘old’ at Your Peril: Influences on Patient Decision Making [abstract]. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2015; 67 (suppl 10). https://acrabstracts.org/abstract/describe-treatments-as-new-or-old-at-your-peril-influences-on-patient-decision-making/. Accessed .
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Print

« Back to 2015 ACR/ARHP Annual Meeting

ACR Meeting Abstracts - https://acrabstracts.org/abstract/describe-treatments-as-new-or-old-at-your-peril-influences-on-patient-decision-making/

Advanced Search

Your Favorites

You can save and print a list of your favorite abstracts during your browser session by clicking the “Favorite” button at the bottom of any abstract. View your favorites »

All abstracts accepted to ACR Convergence are under media embargo once the ACR has notified presenters of their abstract’s acceptance. They may be presented at other meetings or published as manuscripts after this time but should not be discussed in non-scholarly venues or outlets. The following embargo policies are strictly enforced by the ACR.

Accepted abstracts are made available to the public online in advance of the meeting and are published in a special online supplement of our scientific journal, Arthritis & Rheumatology. Information contained in those abstracts may not be released until the abstracts appear online. In an exception to the media embargo, academic institutions, private organizations, and companies with products whose value may be influenced by information contained in an abstract may issue a press release to coincide with the availability of an ACR abstract on the ACR website. However, the ACR continues to require that information that goes beyond that contained in the abstract (e.g., discussion of the abstract done as part of editorial news coverage) is under media embargo until 10:00 AM ET on November 14, 2024. Journalists with access to embargoed information cannot release articles or editorial news coverage before this time. Editorial news coverage is considered original articles/videos developed by employed journalists to report facts, commentary, and subject matter expert quotes in a narrative form using a variety of sources (e.g., research, announcements, press releases, events, etc.).

Violation of this policy may result in the abstract being withdrawn from the meeting and other measures deemed appropriate. Authors are responsible for notifying colleagues, institutions, communications firms, and all other stakeholders related to the development or promotion of the abstract about this policy. If you have questions about the ACR abstract embargo policy, please contact ACR abstracts staff at [email protected].

Wiley

  • Online Journal
  • Privacy Policy
  • Permissions Policies
  • Cookie Preferences

© Copyright 2025 American College of Rheumatology