Exploring methodology for investigating Chinese coronary artery disease patient values and preferences: A methodological study protocol

Abstract

Background: Coronary artery disease (CAD) remains a leading cause of global mortality and disability. CAD patients face tradeoffs between antithrombotic therapy benefits and bleeding risks, underscoring the need to incorporate patient values and preferences into clinical guidelines. Establishing minimal important differences (MIDs) for patient-important outcomes supports clinical guideline development by determining the smallest change in outcomes that patients consider important. However, directly conducting patient surveys to establish MIDs presents several methodological challenges.
Methods: We established a multidisciplinary working group to guide the MID investigation. Using a three-phase process, we identified key outcomes through literature review and discussion. We will develop draft health outcome descriptions by synthesizing evidence from clinical guidelines and qualitative studies, supplemented with patient interviews, and refine the drafts through iterative cognitive interviews. We then designed outcome-specific draft MID questionnaires and will employ cognitive interviews to assess clarity and comprehensibility.
Discussion: This study will develop standard materials for surveying patient values and determining MIDs in Chinese CAD patients. The resulting methodology will support future investigations into patient-important outcomes and provide critical evidence for clinical guideline development.

Keywords

Minimal important difference / Patient values and preferences / Clinical practice guidelines / Coronary artery disease / Cognitive interview

References

[1] Ralapanawa U, Sivakanesan R. Epidemiology and the magnitude of coronary artery disease and acute coronary syndrome: a narrative review. J Epidemiol Glob Health. 2021 Jun; 11(2): 169-177. https://doi.org/10.2991/jegh.k.201217.001

[2] Byrne RA, Rossello X, Coughlan JJ, et al. 2023 ESC guidelines for the management of acute coronary syndromes. Eur Heart J Acute Cardiovasc Care. 2024 Feb 9; 13(1): 55-161. https://doi.org/10.1093/ehjacc/zuad107 Erratum in: Eur Heart J Acute Cardiovasc Care. 2024 May 28; 13(5):455. doi: 10.1093/ehjacc/zuad156.

[3] Zeng L, Helsingen LM, Bretthauer M, et al. A novel framework for incorporating patient values and preferences in making guideline recommendations: guideline panel surveys. J Clin Epidemiol. 2023 Sep; 161: 164-172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2023.07.003

[4] Guyatt G, Vandvik PO, Iorio A, et al. Core GRADE 7: principles for moving from evidence to recommendations and decisions. BMJ. 2025 Jun 3; 389: e083867. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2024-083867

[5] Hultcrantz M, Schünemann HJ, Mustafa RA, et al. GRADE certainty ratings: thresholds rather than categories of contextualization (GRADE guidance 41). Ann Intern Med. 2025 Jul 1. https://doi.org/10.7326/ANNALS-25-00548

[6] Carrasco-Labra A, Devji T, Qasim A, et al. Minimal important difference estimates for patient-reported outcomes: a systematic survey. J Clin Epidemiol. 2021 May; 133: 61-71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.11.024

[7] Stolker JM, Spertus JA, Cohen DJ, et al. Rethinking composite end points in clinical trials: insights from patients and trialists. Circulation. 2014 Oct 7; 130(15): 1254-1261. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.113.006588

[8] Yuan Z, Levitan B, Burton P, Poulos C, Brett Hauber A, Berlin JA. Relative importance of benefits and risks associated with antithrombotic therapies for acute coronary syndrome: patient and physician perspectives. Curr Med Res Opin. 2014 Sep; 30(9): 1733-1741. https://doi.org/10.1185/03007995.2014.921611

[9] Najafzadeh M, Schneeweiss S, Choudhry NK, Avorn J, Gagne JJ. General population vs. patient preferences in anticoagulant therapy: a discrete choice experiment. Patient. 2019 Apr; 12(2): 235-246. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-018-0329-1

[10] Xu Y, Siegal DM. Anticoagulant-associated gastrointestinal bleeding: framework for decisions about whether, when and how to resume anticoagulants. J Thromb Haemost. 2021 Oct; 19(10): 2383-2393. https://doi.org/10.1111/jth.15466

[11] Sugano K. How do we manage serious gastrointestinal adverse events associated with anti-thrombotic therapy? Expert Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2015 Jan; 9(1): 5-8. https://doi.org/10.1586/17474124.2014.945913

[12] Matza LS, Stewart KD, Gandra SR, et al. Acute and chronic impact of cardiovascular events on health state utilities. BMC Health Serv Res. 2015 Apr 22; 15: 173. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-015-0772-9

[13] Solomon NA, Glick HA, Russo CJ, Lee J, Schulman KA. Patient preferences for stroke outcomes. Stroke. 1994 Sep; 25(9): 1721-1725. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.str.25.9.1721

[14] Wiercioch W, Nieuwlaat R, Dahm P, et al. ASH VTE panels working group. development and application of health outcome descriptors facilitated decision-making in the production of practice guidelines. J Clin Epidemiol. 2021 Oct; 138: 115-127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.04.016

[15] Baldeh T, Saz-Parkinson Z, Muti P, et al. Development and use of health outcome descriptors: a guideline development case study. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2020 Jun 5; 18(1): 167. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-020-01338-8

[16] Devereaux PJ, Anderson DR, Gardner MJ, et al. Differences between perspectives of physicians and patients on anticoagulation in patients with atrial fibrillation: observational study. BMJ. 2001 Nov 24; 323(7323): 1218-1222. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.323.7323.1218

[17] Schünemann HJ, Ståhl E, Austin P, Akl E, Armstrong D, Guyatt GH. A comparison of narrative and table formats for presenting hypothetical health states to patients with gastrointestinal or pulmonary disease. Med Decis Mak. 2004 Jan-Feb; 24(1): 53-60. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X03261566

[18] Willis GB. Cognitive interviewing: a tool for improving questionnaire design. London: Sage Publications Ltd; 2004.

[19] Meadows KA, Ferrante N, Geršić T. Cognitive interviews: recommendations for best practices in clinical outcome assessment (COA) measure development and validation. Patient. 2025 Jul 24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-025-00752-8

[20] Scott K, Ummer O, LeFevre AE . The devil is in the detail: reflections on the value and application of cognitive interviewing to strengthen quantitative surveys in global health. Health Policy Plan. 2021 Jun 25; 36(6): 982-995. https://doi.org/10.1093/heapol/czab048

[21] Q-Notes Analysis Software for Cognitive Interviewing [cited 2025 May 21]. Available from: 〈https://wwwn.cdc.gov/QNotes/〉.

[22] Man-Son-Hing M, Laupacis A, O'Connor AM. et. patient preference-based treatment thresholds and recommendations: a comparison of decision-analytic modeling with the probability-tradeoff technique. Med Decis Mak. 2000 Oct-Dec; 20(4): 394-403. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X0002000403

[23] Devereaux PJ, Anderson DR, Gardner MJ, et al. Differences between perspectives of physicians and patients on anticoagulation in patients with atrial fibrillation: observational study. BMJ. 2001 Nov 24; 323(7323): 1218-1222. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.323.7323.1218

[24] Abraham NS, Naik AD, Street RL, et al. Complex antithrombotic therapy: determinants of patient preference and impact on medication adherence. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2015 Nov 19; 9: 1657-1668. https://doi.org/10.2147/PPA.S91553

[25] Tourangeau R. Cognitive sciences and survey methods. In: Cognitive aspects of survey methodology: building a bridge between disciplines. 15th ed. 1984. p. 73-100.

[26] Meades R, Sinesi A, Williams LR, et al. MAP study team. Evaluation of perinatal anxiety assessment measures: a cognitive interview study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2024 Jul 27; 24(1): 507. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-024-06641-6