Patient preferences for osteoporosis in Spain: a discrete choice experiment

Darbà, Josep; Restovic, G; Kaskens, Lisette; Balbona, M. A.; Carbonell, A.; Cavero, P.; Jordana, Montserrat; Prieto, Carlos; Molina, Antonio González; Padró, Isabel

doi:10.1007/s00198-010-1382-3

Cited by 23 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Previous DCEs have investigated women’s preference for osteoporosis drug treatment [8-10]. Our results confirm the findings of de Bekker-Grob and colleagues that patients prefer monthly oral tablet to weekly oral tablet [9] and those of Darba and colleagues suggesting no significant difference in preference between weekly oral regimen and yearly intravenous injection [8].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Patients’ preferences for osteoporosis drug treatment: a discrete-choice experiment

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionThe patient’s perspective is becoming increasingly important in clinical and policy decisions. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the preferences of patients with, or at risk of, osteoporosis for medication attributes, and to establish how patients trade between these attributes.MethodsA discrete choice experiment survey was designed and patients were asked to choose between two hypothetical unlabelled drug treatments (and an opt-out option) that vary in five attributes: efficacy in reducing the risk of fracture, type of potential common side-effects, mode and frequency of administration and out-of-pocket costs. An efficient experimental design was used to construct the treatment option choice sets and a mixed logit panel data model was used to estimate patients’ preferences and trade-offs between attributes.ResultsA total of 257 patients with, or at risk of, osteoporosis completed the experiment. As expected, patients preferred treatment with higher effectiveness and lower cost. They also preferred either an oral monthly tablet or 6-month subcutaneous injection above weekly oral tablets, 3-month subcutaneous, 3-month intravenous or yearly intravenous injections. Patients disliked being at risk of gastro-intestinal disorders more than being at risk of skin reactions and flu-like symptoms. There was significant variation in preferences across the sample for all attributes except subcutaneous injection.ConclusionsThis study revealed that osteoporotic patients preferred 6-month subcutaneous injection and oral monthly tablet, and disliked gastro-intestinal disorders. Moreover, patients were willing to pay a personal contribution or to trade treatment efficacy for better levels of other attributes. Preferences for treatment attributes varied across patients and this highlights the importance of clinical decision-making taking individual preferences into account to improve osteoporosis care.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

“…This study differs from previously published DCEs in osteoporosis in several ways [8-10]. First, this study includes recently introduced routes and timing of administration (for example, subcutaneous and intravenous injection) and the nature of potential side-effects.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Patients’ preferences for osteoporosis drug treatment: a discrete-choice experiment

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Aspects of convenience valued can be classified broadly into two categories: Those relating to the administration of an intervention, for example, dosing frequency or mode of administration [13,15,18,19,21,23,24,26,[30][31][32][33][34][36][37][38][39], and those looking at ease of access to an intervention, for example, distance to travel [14,16,17,20,25,28,29,35]. Two studies spanned both categories [22,27].…”

Section: Key Characteristics Of Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A substantial proportion of the studies (56%) took the form of a DCE, using a financial or cost-related attribute to derive a WTP valuation for convenience [13,[15][16][17]22,24,25,27,28,32,34,[36][37][38][39].…”

Section: Key Characteristics Of Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Studies identified and reviewed were published between 1996 and 2013, and came from Canada (n ¼ 7) [13][14][15][16][17][18][19], the United States (n ¼ 3) [20][21][22], the United Kingdom (n ¼ 3) [23][24][25], Scotland (n ¼ 3) [26][27][28], Australia (n ¼ 3) [29][30][31], Sweden (n ¼ 2) [32,33], Denmark (n ¼ 1) [34], Germany (n ¼ 1) [35], Italy (n ¼ 1) [36], and Spain (n ¼ 1) [37]. Two studies had multinational perspectives [38,39].…”

Section: Key Characteristics Of Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Does Convenience Matter in Health Care Delivery? A Systematic Review of Convenience-Based Aspects of Process Utility

Higgins

Barnett

Meads³

et al. 2014

Value in Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: To systematically review the existing literature on the value associated with convenience in health care delivery, independent of health outcomes, and to try to estimate the likely magnitude of any value found. Methods: A systematic search was conducted for previously published studies that reported preferences for convenience-related aspects of health care delivery in a manner that was consistent with either cost-utility analysis or cost-benefit analysis. Data were analyzed in terms of the methodologies used, the aspects of convenience considered, and the values reported. Results: Literature searches generated 4715 records. Following a review of abstracts or full-text articles, 27 were selected for inclusion. Twentysix studies reported some evidence of convenience-related process utility, in the form of either a positive utility or a positive willingness to pay. The aspects of convenience valued most often were mode of administration (n ¼ 11) and location of treatment (n ¼ 6). The most common valuation methodology was a discrete-choice experiment containing a cost component (n ¼ 15). Conclusions: A preference for convenience-related process utility exists, independent of health outcomes. Given the diverse methodologies used to calculate it, and the range of aspects being valued, however, it is difficult to assess how large such a preference might be, or how it may be effectively incorporated into an economic evaluation. Increased consistency in reporting these preferences is required to assess these issues more accurately.

show abstract

Current situation of shared decision making in osteoporosis: A comprehensive literature review of patient decision aids and decision drivers

Nogués

Carbonell

Canals

et al. 2022

Health Science Reports

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and Aims Osteoporosis is a systemic skeletal disease characterized by low bone mass and microstructural deterioration of bone tissues, resulting in bone fragility and increased fracture risk. It is the most common bone‐related disease in the population. However, the proportion of patients who start treatment but discontinue it during the first year is very high (around 50%). Endeavors are made to promote patient participation in treatment by implementing patient decision aids (PDA), whose function is to help the patient make disease‐related decisions. We aim to summarize the characteristics of the currently available PDA for osteoporosis, as well as deciding factors. Methods Comprehensive review of the literature. Results Currently, eleven PDAs can be found for osteoporosis. These PDA have different characteristics or options such as information about treatments tailored to patient needs, graphic information of the results (to facilitate understanding), personal histories (learning), tests to check the knowledge acquired, provision of evidence, clinical practice guidelines or a final summary to share with their doctor. Only five of these PDAs can be considered complete since they provide relevant disease information and therapeutic options to the patient, promote patient's reflection and foment patient‐physician discussion. Conclusions This study provides an update on the current state of decision making on osteoporosis and available PDA, which can help engage the patient through shared decision‐making by considering, among other things, patient preferences. Physicians should consider PDA, as it may promote adherence and effectiveness of treatment.

show abstract

Patient preferences for osteoporosis in Spain: a discrete choice experiment

Cited by 23 publications

References 10 publications

Patients’ preferences for osteoporosis drug treatment: a discrete-choice experiment

Patients’ preferences for osteoporosis drug treatment: a discrete-choice experiment

Does Convenience Matter in Health Care Delivery? A Systematic Review of Convenience-Based Aspects of Process Utility

Current situation of shared decision making in osteoporosis: A comprehensive literature review of patient decision aids and decision drivers

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About