Valuing injection frequency and other attributes of type 2 diabetes treatments in Australia: a discrete choice experiment

Fifer, Simon; Rose, John M.; Hamrosi, Kim; Swain, D.

doi:10.1186/s12913-018-3484-0

Cited by 26 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…DCE methodology is favored over ranking/rating approaches as the tasks presented to participants are more consistent with how decisions are made in reality and is underpinned by economic theory (5)(6)(7). DCEs are increasingly being used to evaluate treatment and health care preferences across medical disciplines (8)(9)(10)(11) and have been used to quantify patient and physician preferences for the treatments of dermatological conditions including psoriasis, melanoma and dermatological surgeries (12)(13)(14)(15)(16)(17). No such methods have been used to quantify preferences in AD treatment, nor has there been much research examining how patients and physicians evaluate the benefits and risks of treatment, or how they may differ, using other empirical methods.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Patient and physician preferences for atopic dermatitis injection treatments in Japan

Okubo

Ho²,

Fifer³

et al. 2019

Journal of Dermatological Treatment

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Recently, biologic agents administered as a subcutaneous injection have been introduced as treatment options for atopic dermatitis (AD). Biologic treatments differ considerably from traditional topical and systemic anti-inflammatory treatments, and it is unclear how this may impact patient and physician preferences for treatments. Objective: To examine the treatment preferences for new injection treatments of patients and physicians. Methods: Discrete choice experiment methodology was used to quantify preferences for treatments via an online survey. Participants were presented with a series of choice scenarios; treatment options were described using the following attributes: add-on or replacement treatment, efficacy of improving rashes and itching, time until response, place of administration, injection site reaction, risk of mild-to-moderate and severe side effects, frequency of administration and cost. Results: 76.67% of physicians and 46.24% of patients opted-in to the new treatment in the scenarios presented. Of those who opted-in to treatment, physicians were more likely to value the efficacy of treating rashes and were more concerned about cost than patients. Patients preferred add-on treatments and were against self-administering the treatment at home. Conclusion: Overall patients and physicians differ in their preferences for AD treatments. These findings have implications for shared decision making and clinical practice.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Patient and physician preferences for atopic dermatitis injection treatments in Japan

Okubo

Ho²,

Fifer³

et al. 2019

Journal of Dermatological Treatment

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Since then, they have been extended through theory and modelling and are frequently used to understand preferences [6][7][8]. DCE are commonly used in experiments assessing patient preferences for different treatments and have been used in several therapeutic areas including arthritis [5,[9][10][11][12][13][14][15]. Using data from the DCE component, a restricted latent class model (LCM) can be estimated [16].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

What do Australian patients with inflammatory arthritis value in treatment? A discrete choice experiment

Acar²,

Puig³

et al. 2019

Clin Rheumatol

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and objectives The purpose of this study was to develop an understanding of treatment preferences in patients with inflammatory arthritis (IA) [rheumatoid arthritis (RA), ankylosing spondylitis (AS) and psoriatic arthritis (PsA)] focussing on treatment attributes that patients' value, their relative importance, and the risk-benefit trade-offs that characterise patients' choices around treatment. Methods A discrete choice experiment (DCE) approach was used. Attributes of interest were clinical efficacy; slowing of disease progression; risk of mild-moderate side effects; risk of severe side effects; frequency of administration; real-world product evidence; management of related conditions; and availability of a patient support programme. Using data from the DCE component, a restricted latent class model (LCM) was estimated to determine discrete 'classes' of treatment preferences. Results In this analysis, 206 participants were included (AS n = 59; PsA n = 62; RA n = 85). Two classes were identified. For 'class 1' (59.9%), the most important attributes (across all treatment modalities) were preventing disease progression, clinical efficacy and risk of mild-to-moderate side effects. For 'class 2' (40.1%), clinical and non-clinical attributes were important, and attribute importance depended on treatment modality. Patient demographic and treatment characteristics did not predict class membership. Conclusion For most patients with IA, clinical efficacy, stopping disease progression and risks of mild-to-moderate side effects are important treatment attributes. Patients with prior biologic DMARD experience had greater preference for injection treatments. For a subset of patients, patient support programmes and the frequency of administration were important. Clinicians should be mindful of preferences when prescribing treatment to patients with IA. Key Points • Most patients consider clinical efficacy, stopping disease progression and the risk of mild-to-moderate side effects as important treatment attributes • Patients with prior biologic DMARD experience have greater preference for injection treatments. • For a subset of patients, patient support programmes, and the frequency of administration were important. • Clinicians should be mindful of preferences when prescribing treatment to patients with IA.

show abstract

“…The PBAC recommended the new therapy based on potential health benefits from likely improved adherence by a small number of high clinical need populations. The positive recommendation confirms the growing importance of providing patient perspectives and preferences during policy decision making (20).…”

Section: Attempts and Initiatives In Htasmentioning

confidence: 60%

“…However, in the USA, the centralized process is a one-step evaluation undertaken by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) followed by decentralized negotiations undertaken with individual health insurance vendors. Moreover, only one initiative has been identified in Australia in the context of the HTA process (20).…”

Section: Attempts and Initiatives For Integration Of Pps In Decision mentioning

confidence: 99%

Use of Patient Preference Information in Benefit–Risk Assessment, Health Technology Assessment, and Pricing and Reimbursement Decisions: A Systematic Literature Review of Attempts and Initiatives

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: Inclusion of patient preference (PP) data in decision making has been largely discussed in recent years. Healthcare decision makers-regulatory and health technology assessment (HTA)-are more and more conscious of the need for a patient-centered approach to decide on optimal allocation of scarce money, time, and technological resources. This literature review aims to examine the use of and recommendations for the integration of PP in decision making. Methods: A literature search was conducted through PubMed/Medline in May 2019 to identify publications on PP studies used to inform benefit-risk assessments (BRAs) and HTAs and patient-centered projects and guidelines related to the inclusion of PPs in health policy decision making. After title and abstract screening and full-text review, selected publications were analyzed to retrieve data related to the collection, use, and/or submission of PPs informing BRA or HTA as well as attempts and initiatives in recommendations for PPs integration in decision-making processes. Results: Forty-nine articles were included: 24 attempts and pilot project discussions and 25 PP elicitation studies. Quantitative approaches, particularly discrete choice experiments, were the most used (24 quantitative elicitation studies and 1 qualitative study). The objective of assessing PPs was to prioritize outcome-specific information, to value important treatment characteristics, to provide patient-focused benefit-risk trade-offs, and to appraise the patients' willingness to pay for new technologies. Moreover, attempts and pilot projects to integrate PPs in BRAs and HTAs were identified at the European level and across countries, but no clear recommendations have been issued yet. No less than seven public and/or private initiatives have been undertaken by governmental agencies and independent organizations to set guidance targeting improvement of patients' involvement in decision making. Chachoua et al. Patient Preferences in Policy Decision-Making Conclusion: Despite the initiatives undertaken, the pace of progress remains slow. The use of PPs remains poorly implemented, and evidence of proper use of these data in decision making is lacking. Guidelines and recommendations formalizing the purpose of collecting PPs, what methodology should be adopted and how, and who should be responsible for generating these data throughout the decision-making processes are needed to improve and empower integration of PPs in BRA and HTA.

show abstract

Valuing injection frequency and other attributes of type 2 diabetes treatments in Australia: a discrete choice experiment

Cited by 26 publications

References 24 publications

Patient and physician preferences for atopic dermatitis injection treatments in Japan

Patient and physician preferences for atopic dermatitis injection treatments in Japan

What do Australian patients with inflammatory arthritis value in treatment? A discrete choice experiment

Use of Patient Preference Information in Benefit–Risk Assessment, Health Technology Assessment, and Pricing and Reimbursement Decisions: A Systematic Literature Review of Attempts and Initiatives

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About