Evaluating patient preferences for thermal ablation versus nonthermal, nontumescent varicose vein treatments

J Vasc Surg Venous Lymphat Disord. 2021 Mar;9(2):383-392. doi: 10.1016/j.jvsv.2020.08.003. Epub 2020 Aug 11.

Abstract

Objective: To measure patient preferences for attributes associated with thermal ablation and nonthermal, nontumescent varicose vein treatments.

Methods: Data were collected from an electronic patient preference survey taken by 70 adult participants (aged 20 years or older) at three Center for Vein Restoration clinics in New Jersey from July 19, 2019, through August 13, 2019. Survey participation was voluntary and anonymous (participation rate of 80.5% [70/87]). Patients were shown 10 consecutive screens that displayed three hypothetical treatment scenarios with different combinations of six attributes of interest and a none option. Choice-based conjoint analysis estimated the relative importance of different aspects of care, trade-offs between these aspects, and total satisfaction that respondents derived from different healthcare procedures. Market simulation analysis compared clusters of attributes mimicking thermal ablation and nonthermal, nontumescent treatments.

Results: Of the six attributes studied, out-of-pocket (OOP) expenditures were the most important to patients (37.2%), followed by postoperative discomfort (17.1%), risk of adverse events (16.3%), time to return to normal activity (11.0%), number of injections (10.0%), and number of visits (8.4%). Patients were willing to pay the most to avoid postoperative discomfort ($68.9) and risk of adverse events ($65.8). The market simulation analysis found that, regardless of the level of OOP spending, 60% to 80% of respondents favored attribute combinations corresponding with nonthermal, nontumescent procedures over thermal ablation, and that less than 1% of participants would forgo either treatment under no cost sharing.

Conclusions: Patients are highly sensitive to OOP costs for minimally invasive varicose vein treatments. Market simulation analysis favored nonthermal, nontumescent procedures over thermal ablation.

Keywords: Choice-based conjoint analysis; Market simulation; Patient preference; Varicose veins; Willingness to pay.

Publication types

  • Multicenter Study
  • Observational Study
  • Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

MeSH terms

  • Ablation Techniques* / adverse effects
  • Ablation Techniques* / economics
  • Adult
  • Aged
  • Aged, 80 and over
  • Anesthesia* / adverse effects
  • Anesthesia* / economics
  • Choice Behavior
  • Cross-Sectional Studies
  • Endovascular Procedures* / adverse effects
  • Endovascular Procedures* / economics
  • Female
  • Functional Status
  • Health Care Costs
  • Health Care Surveys
  • Health Expenditures
  • Humans
  • Male
  • Middle Aged
  • Patient Preference* / economics
  • Postoperative Complications / etiology
  • Recovery of Function
  • Time Factors
  • Treatment Outcome
  • United States
  • Varicose Veins / economics
  • Varicose Veins / therapy*
  • Young Adult