Treatment preferences for depression in the elderly

Luck-Sikorski, Claudia; Stein, Janine; Heilmann, Katharina; Maier, Wolfgang; Kaduszkiewicz, Hanna; Scherer, Martin; Weyerer, Siegfried; Werle, Jochen; Wiese, Birgitt; Moor, L; Bock, Jens‐Oliver; König, Hans‐Helmut; Riedel‐Heller, Steffi G.

doi:10.1017/s1041610216001885

Cited by 37 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 44 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Six instruments used ranking exercises, two in combination with a preceding choice of the most relevant options by the participant and one in combination with a Likert scale. 43,62,71,75,77,82,83 A direct choice between different treatment options was employed by four instruments, one using an additional questionnaire. 48,54,66,73 The time trade-off technique and questionnaires were used by three instruments respectively.…”

Section: Methods To Assess Patient Preferencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Thirty-nine studies met our age-related eligibility criteria by exclusively including adults aged 65 years and older, 32,35,[37][38][39]41,42,[44][45][46][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60][62][63][64][65][66][67][68][69][70][71][72][73][74][75][76][77][78] 16 by reporting a mean or median age ≥ 75 years, 31,36,40,43,47,48,61,[79][80][81][82]…”

Section: Study Populationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…42,47,49,51,52,54,56,57,71,74,79 Thirty-seven studies reported data regarding the cognitive status of their participants. 31,32,35,36,[41][42][43][44]47,49,[51][52][53][55][56][57][58][59][60][61][63][64][65][66][67][68][69][70][71][72]74,75,78,80,83,84,90 In 83.8 % of these studies Variety of pharmacological aspects represented by the method ▼ Low: Method elicits preferences for < 5 different pharmacological aspects (health outcomes, treatment options or procedural characteristics) ▬ Intermediate: Method elicits preferences for 5-10 different pharmacological aspects (health outcomes, treatment options or procedural characteristics) ▲ Hi...…”

Section: Study Populationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Seventeen studies detailed the results of a standardized cognitive evaluation of their study population. 32,36,43,51,52,55,66,[68][69][70][71][72]74,78,80,83,84 The participants' affective status was considered by 30 studies ( Table 2).…”

Section: Study Populationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The majority of the identified 55 instruments were designed to assess patient preferences within a diseasespecific or context-specific setting. The most prevalent contexts were various types of cancer (9 tools), 33,41,48,55,66,72,86,90 mental health issues including depression (7 tools), 43,45,67,71,73,75,82,83 cardiovascular prevention (7 tools), 46,47,60,61,63,74,88 stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation (5 tools), 32,42,44,50,80 and age-related macular degeneration (4 tools). 79,81,85,87 Only three tools were designed for the greater context of multimorbidity: the Outcome Prioritization Tool, 56,57,59,60,65 the complex intervention "PrefCheck" combining a comprehensive geriatric assessment ("STEP assessment") with a health priority evaluation, [68][69][70]78 and the "MediMol" questionnaire.…”

Section: Study Contextmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

<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