Integrating evidence on patient preferences in healthcare policy decisions: protocol of the patient-VIP study

Dirksen, Carmen D.; Utens, Cecile M.A.; Joore, Manuela A.; Barneveld, T. A. van; Boer, Bert; Dreesens, Dunja; Laarhoven, Hans van; Smit, Cees; Stiggelbout, Anne M.; Weijden, Trudy van der

doi:10.1186/1748-5908-8-64

Cited by 53 publications

(55 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…We defined preference as the relative "desirability" of a certain option. 26 The medical context of preference elicitation had to involve the pharmacological treatment of chronic conditions, either by directly evaluating preferences for specific medicines or their characteristics or by evaluating preferences for health outcomes potentially achieved with medicines. Studies were included if they addressed an aged population, defined by a cut-off for inclusion of ≥ 65 years.…”

Section: Eligibility Criteriamentioning

confidence: 99%

<p>Methods to Assess Patient Preferences in Old Age Pharmacotherapy – A Systematic Review</p>

Eidam¹,

Roth²,

Lacroix³

et al. 2020

PPA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: The aim of this systematic review was to identify methods used to assess medication preferences in older adults and evaluate their advantages and disadvantages with respect to their applicability to the context of multimorbidity and polypharmacy. Material and Methods: Three electronic databases (PubMed, Web of Science, PsycINFO) were searched. Eligible studies elicited individual treatment or outcome preferences in a context that involved long-term pharmacological treatment options. We included studies with a study population aged ≥ 65 years and/or with a mean or median age of ≥ 75 years. Qualitative studies, studies assessing preferences for only two different treatments, and studies targeting preferences for life-sustaining treatments were excluded. The identified preference measurement methods were evaluated based on four criteria (time budget, cognitive demand, variety of pharmacological aspects, and link with treatment strategies) judged to be relevant for the elicitation of patient preferences in polypharmacy. Results: Sixty articles met the eligibility criteria and were included in the narrative synthesis. Fifty-five different instruments to assess patient preferences, based on 24 different elicitation methods, were identified. The most commonly applied preference measurement techniques were "medication willingness" (description of a specific medication with inquiry of the participant's willingness to take it), discrete choice experiments, Likert scale-based questionnaires, and rank prioritization. The majority of the instruments were created for disease-specific or context-specific settings. Only three instruments (Outcome Prioritization Tool, a complex intervention, "MediMol" questionnaire) dealt with the broader issue of geriatric multimorbidity. Only seven of the identified tools showed somewhat favorable characteristics for a potential use of the respective method in the context of polypharmacy. Conclusion: Up to now, few instruments have been specifically designed for the assessment of medication preferences in older patients with multimorbidity. To facilitate valid preference elicitation in the context of geriatric polypharmacy, future research should focus on suitable characteristics of existing techniques to develop new measurement approaches for this increasingly relevant population.

show abstract

Section: Eligibility Criteriamentioning

confidence: 99%

<p>Methods to Assess Patient Preferences in Old Age Pharmacotherapy – A Systematic Review</p>

Eidam¹,

Roth²,

Lacroix³

et al. 2020

PPA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…All of the aforementioned insights would imply that several enhancements in current practice might be needed in order to improve the contents and quality of SGE for patients with axial SpA. As a prerequisite for successful implementation, it is important to explore the current perspective of various stakeholders on this matter, including patients' perspectives . The literature on patient perspective, specifically regarding SGE for patients with axial SpA, is scarce.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Supervised Group Exercise in Axial Spondyloarthritis: Patients' Satisfaction and Perspective on Evidence‐Based Enhancements

Hilberdink

Giesen

Vlieland

et al. 2020

Arthritis Care & Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective. Supervised group exercise (SGE) has been proven effective in patients with axial spondyloarthritis (SpA), but its contents and dosage do not always comply with current scientific insight. This aim of this study was to describe axial SpA patients' satisfaction with current SGE and perspective on potential evidence-based SGE enhancements.Methods. Patients with axial SpA who participated in SGE in 4 regions in The Netherlands (n = 118) completed a cross-sectional survey on their satisfaction with features of their current SGE (8 questions scored on a 3-point Likert scale; 1 overall grade, scored according to an 11-point scale) and their perspective on the introduction of appropriately dosed cardiorespiratory and strengthening exercise, monitoring of exercise intensity, periodic reassessments, patient education, and supervision by physical therapists with specific expertise (4 dichotomous questions and one 5-point Likert scale).Results. Most patients were satisfied with the current total intensity (84 of 112 patients [75%]), duration (93 of 111 patients [84%]), and load (89 of 117 patients [76%]) of the program and the proportion of mobility (102 of 114 patients [90%]), strengthening (90 of 115 patients [78%]), and cardiorespiratory exercise (82 of 114 patients [72%]). The median overall grade of the program was a 7 (interquartile range 7-8). Most patients agreed with the implementation of more frequent (home) exercise (73 of 117 patients [62%]), heart-rate monitoring (97 of 117 patients [83%]), and annual reassessments (97 of 118 patients [82%]), whereas 50% agreed with the introduction of patient education (37 of 74 patients). The majority found supervision by therapists specializing in axial SpA to be of high importance (105 of 118 patients [89%]).Conclusion. The majority of SGE participants with axial SpA were satisfied with current SGE but also agreed with enhancements in line with scientific evidence. Current satisfaction levels indicate that a planned implementation strategy, including education and addressing potential barriers and facilitators for the uptake of enhancements, is warranted.

show abstract

“…As follow-up care evolves, it is important to recognise the importance of patient preferences, and to consider the acceptability of new and potential models of follow-up to the growing population of cancer survivors (Brennan and Strombom, 1998; Dirksen et al , 2013). Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) offer one method of doing so and have been used to explore patient preferences in the delivery of healthcare (Ryan et al , 2008).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Determining cancer survivors' preferences to inform new models of follow-up care

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background:Specialist-led cancer follow-up is becoming increasingly expensive and is failing to meet many survivors' needs. Alternative models informed by survivors' preferences are urgently needed. It is unknown if follow-up preferences differ by cancer type. We conducted the first study to assess British cancer survivors' follow-up preferences, and the first anywhere to compare the preferences of survivors from different cancers.Methods:A discrete choice experiment questionnaire was mailed to 1201 adults in Northeast Scotland surviving melanoma, breast, prostate or colorectal cancer. Preferences and trade-offs for attributes of cancer follow-up were explored, overall and by cancer site.Results:668 (56.6%) recipients (132 melanoma, 213 breast, 158 prostate, 165 colorectal) responded. Cancer survivors had a strong preference to see a consultant during a face-to-face appointment when receiving cancer follow-up. However, cancer survivors appeared willing to accept follow-up from specialist nurses, registrars or GPs provided that they are compensated by increased continuity of care, dietary advice and one-to-one counselling. Longer appointments were also valued. Telephone and web-based follow-up and group counselling, were not considered desirable. Survivors of colorectal cancer and melanoma would see any alternative provider for greater continuity, whereas breast cancer survivors wished to see a registrar or specialist nurse, and prostate cancer survivors, a general practitioner.Conclusions:Cancer survivors may accept non-consultant follow-up if compensated with changes elsewhere. Care continuity was sufficient compensation for most cancers. Given practicalities, costs and the potential to develop continuous care, specialist nurse-led cancer follow-up may be attractive.

show abstract

Integrating evidence on patient preferences in healthcare policy decisions: protocol of the patient-VIP study

Cited by 53 publications

References 39 publications

<p>Methods to Assess Patient Preferences in Old Age Pharmacotherapy – A Systematic Review</p>

<p>Methods to Assess Patient Preferences in Old Age Pharmacotherapy – A Systematic Review</p>

Supervised Group Exercise in Axial Spondyloarthritis: Patients' Satisfaction and Perspective on Evidence‐Based Enhancements

Determining cancer survivors' preferences to inform new models of follow-up care

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About