This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in ISI Web of Science Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (3) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Barrett, B. Articles by Maberry, R. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Barrett, B. Articles by Maberry, R. Social Bookmarking                   What's this?

Using Benefit Harm Tradeoffs to Estimate Sufficiently Important Difference: The Case of the Common Cold

Department of Family Medicine, University of Wisconsin Medical School, Madison

Roger Brown, PhD

Department of Family Medicine, University of Wisconsin Medical School, Madison

Marlon Mundt, MS

Department of Family Medicine, University of Wisconsin Medical School, Madison

Leota Dye, PhD

Department of Family Medicine, University of Wisconsin Medical School, Madison

Jennifer Alt

Department of Family Medicine, University of Wisconsin Medical School, Madison

Nasia Safdar, MD

Department of Family Medicine, University of Wisconsin Medical School, Madison

Rob Maberry, BA

Department of Family Medicine, University of Wisconsin Medical School, Madison

Context. The term "sufficiently important difference" (SID) refers to the overall amount of benefit that people consider sufficient to justify the costs and risks of treatment. Little is known about patient preferences regarding benefits and harms of common cold treatments. Objectives. To develop methods to assess SID and to estimate SID for common cold. Design: The authors conducted in-person and telephone interviews with people with colds, using benefit harm tradeoff methods. The hypothetical benefit of reduction in length of illness was traded off against best estimates of costs and risks. First, the authors briefly described costs, risks, and possible symptomatic benefits of 4 treatment scenarios, based on evidence regarding vitamin C, echinacea, zinc, and pleconaril, an antiviral. Hypothetical benefit (reduction of illness duration) was then varied until the cold sufferer indicated that the treatment was minimally desirable. Participants. Interviews were conducted in person with 149 community-recruited adult participants, once at the beginning of their colds, and then again within a few days after symptoms had resolved. Additionally, 162 adult callers with self-identified colds completed interviews via telephone. Results. A total of 460 benefit harm tradeoff interviews (1840 treatment scenarios) estimated overall mean SID as 52.6 h (95% CI, 50.6 to 54.6). For the scenario based on vitamin C, mean SID was estimated as 26.1 h (95% CI, 23.2 to 29.3), with 142 of 460 (31%) saying they would take it regardless of duration benefit, and 22 of 460 (5%) saying they would not take it, regardless of duration benefit. For the echinacea-based scenario, mean SID was estimated at 36.8 h (33.4 to 40.2), with 105 (23%) favoring and 41 (9%) rejecting treatment, regardless of duration benefit. For the zinc lozenge-based scenario, mean SID was estimated as 64.8 h (61.0 to 67.9), with 42 (9%) favoring and 109 (24%) rejecting treatment. For the prescription antiviral-based scenario, mean SID was estimated as 82.6 h (78.7 to 86.7), with 29 (6%) favoring and 223 (48%) rejecting. Severity of illness at the time of interview did not appear to significantly influence responses. Possible side effects, treatment type (tablet v. lozenge v. liquid), monetary costs, and opportunity costs (e.g., getting to the doctor or pharmacy, dosing frequency) did appear to be important in influencing these preference patterns. Conclusions. Our study suggests that, on average, people want the duration of their colds to be reduced by between 26 and 65 h to justify potential harms of popular cold treatments. A prescription antiviral would require a greater benefit (83 h) to justify larger perceived risks.

Key Words: common cold • controlled trials • decision making • evidence-based medicine • important difference • patient preferences • quality of life • treatment outcome • upper respiratory infection

Medical Decision Making, Vol. 25, No. 1, 47-55 (2005)
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X04273147


CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				M. J. Mehlman and J. W. Berg Human subjects protections in biomedical enhancement research: assessing risk and benefit and obtaining informed consent. J. Law Med. Ethics, September 1, 2008; 36(3): 546 - 549. [PDF]

				B. Barrett, B. Harahan, D. Brown, Z. Zhang, and R. Brown Sufficiently Important Difference for Common Cold: Severity Reduction Ann. Fam. Med, May 1, 2007; 5(3): 216 - 223. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				B. Barrett, D. Brown, M. Mundt, and R. Brown Sufficiently Important Difference: Expanding the Framework of Clinical Significance Med Decis Making, May 1, 2005; 25(3): 250 - 261. [Abstract] [PDF]