Differences between patients’, physicians’ and pharmacists’ preferences for treatment products in haemophilia: a discrete choice experiment

Abstract

The provision of health care to patients with haemophilia through replacement of the deficient coagulation factor is the result of a complex interaction between patients, physicians and policy makers, each carrying their individual sets of preferences. Preferences of patients, physicians and pharmacists towards perceived viral safety, risk of inhibitor development, infusion frequency during prophylaxis, pharmaceutical dosage form, distribution modes and price were evaluated by conjoint analysis, using a discrete choice experiment. Overall 178 patients', 69 physicians and 58 pharmacists completed the study. Patients, physicians and pharmacists displayed preferences: (i) similar in direction and strength for risk of inhibitors and frequency of prophylaxis, (ii) similar in direction, but not in strength for perceived viral safety and price, with patients showing lower strength compared with physicians and pharmacists, and (iii) dissimilar in direction and/or strength for: (i) dosage form, which tested important only for pharmacists and (ii) distribution mode, which tested important for patients and physicians only. Our study provides evidence of the differences between different stakeholders in the preferences towards haemophilia replacement therapy, indicating that different opinions should be taken into account when planning optimal care.

Patient Benefit-Risk Preferences for Targeted Agents in the Treatment of Renal Cell Carcinoma

“…Choice-format conjoint surveys often include attributes that describe disease outcomes and treatment attributes as certain outcomes. [30][31][32][33] Rarely do studies describe attributes in probabilistic terms. Understanding and conceptualizing numerical probabilities is often cognitively challenging.…”

Patients’ and urologists’ preferences for prostate cancer treatment: a discrete choice experiment

“…Several DCE studies have shown that patients and physicians may differ substantially in their trade-offs between health-care interventions (Bishop et al , 2004; Lee et al , 2005; Mantovani et al , 2005; de Bekker-Grob et al , 2009). By understanding factors that influence patients' treatment decisions, physicians may become more sensitive to individual patients' preferences/concerns, which may have a positive effect on the process and outcomes of shared decision making.…”

Insights into public preferences for pharmaceutical funding

“…Thus, the useable response rate was 16.3 per cent (161 out of 985). The sample size is comparable with other marketing or health care DCEs (Arora, 2006;Mantovani et al, 2005;Ryan and Farrar, 2000) and exceeds other discrete choice or conjoint-based experiments (Dean, 2004;Haas, 2005;Johnson and Backhouse, 2006;King et al, 2007;Koo et al, 1999;Lancsar et al, 2007;Tappenden et al, 2007).…”