Do patients and health care providers have discordant preferences about which aspects of treatments matter most? Evidence from a systematic review of discrete choice experiments

Harrison, Mark; Milbers, Katherine; Hudson, Marie; Bansback, Nick

doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2016-014719

Cited by 80 publications

(67 citation statements)

References 66 publications

(123 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Instead of testing the alignment of patient/physician pairs, in this study patients and physicians responded independent from each other and concordance was assessed in terms of the RI of specific treatment attributes. While paired comparisons are an interesting methodological approach, the majority of studies analyzing the concordance of patient and physician preferences still rely on DCEs ( M. Harrison, Milbers, Hudson, & Bansback, 2017 ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Patient Preferences and Urologist Judgments on Prostate Cancer Therapy in Japan

Nakayama¹,

Kobayashi²,

Okazaki³

et al. 2018

Am J Mens Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of the present study is to investigate the concordance of treatment preferences between patients and physicians in prostate cancer (PCa) in Japan. An internet-based discrete choice experiment was conducted. Patients and physicians were asked to select their preferred treatment from a pair of hypothetical treatments consisting of four attributes: quality of life (QOL), treatment effectiveness, side effects, and accessibility of treatment. The data were analyzed using a conditional logistic regression model to calculate coefficients and the relative importance (RI) of each attribute. A total of 103 PCa patients and 127 physicians responded. The study looked at 37 patients considered as advanced PCa and 66 who were non-advanced PCa. All of the physicians were urologists. Advanced PCa patients ranked the attributes as follows: treatment effectiveness (RI: 32%), accessibility of treatment (RI: 26%), QOL (RI: 23%), and side effects (RI: 19%). For physicians, the RI ranking was the same as for advanced PCa patients; treatment effectiveness (RI: 29%), accessibility of treatment (RI: 27%), QOL (RI: 26%), and side effects (RI: 18%). For non-advanced PCa patients, accessibility of treatment ranked the highest RI (27%) and treatment effectiveness ranked as the lowest RI (14%). Our study suggests that the ranking of the attributes was consistent between advanced PCa patients and physicians. The most influential attribute was treatment effectiveness. Treatment preferences also vary by disease stage.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Patient Preferences and Urologist Judgments on Prostate Cancer Therapy in Japan

Nakayama¹,

Kobayashi²,

Okazaki³

et al. 2018

Am J Mens Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…They may include even non-health outcomes of health interventions [ 35 ]. Interestingly, patient preferences can differ compared to physicians’ judgment, as shown in different systematic reviews [ 36 , 37 ]. Most studies revealed a disparity between the preferences of actual patients and those of physicians.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quantified patient preferences for lifestyle intervention programs for diabetes prevention—a protocol for a systematic review

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThe 20–70% participation of diabetes patients in lifestyle interventions (LSI) worldwide seems to be rather sub-optimal, in spite of all intents of such interventions to delay further progress of the disease. Positive effects through LSI are expected in particular for patients who suffer less from diabetes-related limitations or other chronic diseases. Seeing that diabetes prevalence and with it mortality are increasing, LSI have become an inherent part of diabetes treatment standards. Various qualitative studies have been carried out to identify participation barriers for LSI. However, these have not resulted in more detailed knowledge about the relative importance of factors with an inhibiting impact on participation. Since it cannot be assumed that all of the influencing factors have equivalent values, it is necessary to investigate their individual importance with regard to a positive or negative decision about participating. There are no systematic reviews on patient preferences for LSI programs in diabetes prevention. As a result, the main objectives of this systematic review are to (i) identify existing patient preference elicitation studies related to LSI for diabetic patients, (ii) summarize the methods applied and findings, and (iii) appraise the reporting and methodological quality of such studies.MethodsWe will perform systematic literature searches to identify suitable studies from 14 electronic databases. Retrieved study records will be included based on predefined eligibility criteria as defined in this protocol. We will run abstract and full-text screenings and then extract data from all selected studies by filling in a predefined data extraction spreadsheet. We will undertake a descriptive, narrative synthesis of findings to address the study objectives, since no pooling for quantified preferences is for methodological reasons implementable. We will pay special attention to aspects of methodological quality of preference elicitation by applying established evaluation criteria of the ISPOR and some own developed criteria for different elicitation techniques. All critical stages within the screening, data extraction, and synthesis processes will be conducted by two pairs of authors. This protocol adheres to PRISMA and PRISMA-P standards.DiscussionThe proposed systematic review will provide an overview of the methods used and current practice in the elicitation and quantification of patients’ preferences for diabetes prevention lifestyle interventions. Furthermore, the methodological quality of the identified studies will be appraised as well.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42018086988Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s13643-018-0884-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

“…Instead of testing the alignment of patient/physician pairs, in this study patients and physicians responded independently from each other and concordance was assessed in terms of the relative importance of specific treatment attributes. While paired comparisons are an interesting methodological approach, the majority of studies analysing the concordance of patient and physician preferences still rely on separate sample DCEs [ 37 ]. However, a recent Japanese study explicitly evaluated treatment goal alignment between psoriasis patients and their paired physicians.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Patient and Physician Preferences for Therapy Characteristics for Psoriasis: A Discrete Choice Experiment in Japan

Bolt

Kobayashi²,

Mahlich

2018

PharmacoEconomics Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background With progress being made in the treatment of psoriasis, a variety of clinical research and treatment options are being pursued. This study used a discrete choice experiment (DCE) to estimate treatment characteristic preferences for both patients and physicians in Japan. Subgroup analysis was also applied in order to examine differences within the range of patients and within the range of physicians. Methods The DCE was developed with the input of clinical experts in the treatment of psoriasis to ensure inclusion of the most relevant attributes at appropriate levels in a way that is understandable to both physicians and patients. The study was conducted on parallel samples of Japanese physicians ( n = 161) and Japanese psoriasis patients ( n = 306) through an online panel. For each sample, a conditional logit statistical model and subgroup analysis were then performed to estimate respondent preferences for treatment attributes. Results The overall findings are that better treatment efficacy as measured by proportion of patients achieving 90% reduction in the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index score (PASI 90), lower risk of adverse events and the availability of a bio-holiday are important decision factors for both patients and physicians. Low injection frequency is less of a priority for both samples. Also, while both groups demonstrate a preference to receive the treatment injections at a clinic by a healthcare professional rather than self-injection at home, this is more pronounced for the patient sample. The physician sample shows considerably more emphasis on the type of injection, though both samples prefer subcutaneous injections to intravenous injections. Implications This study reveals the importance of addressing both clinical effectiveness and process factors in systemic, non-topical psoriasis treatments to gain acceptance by both physicians and patients. As well as efficacy (as measured by PASI 90), which remains a consistent priority in treatment, administration and development of new treatments should also consider process factors such as the mode of administration and possibility for a bio-holiday. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1007/s41669-018-0104-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

Do patients and health care providers have discordant preferences about which aspects of treatments matter most? Evidence from a systematic review of discrete choice experiments

Cited by 80 publications

References 66 publications

Patient Preferences and Urologist Judgments on Prostate Cancer Therapy in Japan

Patient Preferences and Urologist Judgments on Prostate Cancer Therapy in Japan

Quantified patient preferences for lifestyle intervention programs for diabetes prevention—a protocol for a systematic review

Patient and Physician Preferences for Therapy Characteristics for Psoriasis: A Discrete Choice Experiment in Japan

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About