Abstract
Background Low-value diagnostic testing adds billions of dollars to the cost of health care in the US annually. Addressing patient preference for these tests is one possible strategy to limit overuse. In previous work, we showed that patient preference for testing can be influenced by test benefit, risk, and financial measures. Our objective was to examine the effect of these variables in another clinical scenario involving chest pain.
Methods In this cross-sectional survey of patients at the University of Michigan Emergency Department (ED), participants were given a hypothetical scenario involving an ED visit for chest pain, along with information regarding potential benefit (detecting a life-threatening condition; 0.1 or 1%) and risk (developing cancer; 0.1 or 1%) of CTCA, as well as an incentive of $0 or $100 to forego testing. Values for risk, benefit, and financial incentive varied across participants. Our primary outcome was patient preference to undergo testing. We also obtained demographic and numeracy information. Then, we used logistic regression to estimate odds ratios, adjusting for multiple potential confounders. Our sample size was designed to find at least 300 events (test acceptance) to allow for up to 30 covariates in fully adjusted models. We had 85-90% power to detect a 10% absolute difference in testing rate across groups, assuming a 95% significance level.
Results 913 patients were surveyed. A $100 financial incentive (adjusted OR [AOR] 0.57; 95% Confidence Interval [CI] 0.42-0.78) and increased test risk (AOR 0.61; 95% CI 0.44-0.84) both significantly decreased test acceptance in fully adjusted models, whereas increased test benefit significantly increased test acceptance (AOR 2.45; 95% CI 1.79-3.36).
Conclusions Offering a financial incentive deterred patients from accepting testing despite varying levels of risk and benefit. In the context of previous work, we provide preliminary evidence supporting that financial interventions may impact patient preference more than test risk and benefit.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
Funded by NIH 5T35HL007690.
Author Declarations
All relevant ethical guidelines have been followed and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
Any clinical trials involved have been registered with an ICMJE-approved registry such as ClinicalTrials.gov and the trial ID is included in the manuscript.
Not Applicable
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant Equator, ICMJE or other checklist(s) as supplementary files, if applicable.
Not Applicable
Footnotes
jwinkels{at}med.umich.edu, cdmorrow{at}umich.edu, iyengarr{at}umich.edu, ameka{at}umich.edu, jporath{at}med.umich.edu, wmeurer{at}med.umich.edu
Data Availability
The deidentified dataset and model output (including all parameter estimates for the fully adjusted models, and goodness of fit statistics) is posted in the University of Michigan Institutional Data Repository (https://doi.org/10.7302/pnmm-4v40).
