Josiah Edelblut, Jeffrey R Skaar, John Hilton, Matthew Seibt, Kyle Martin, Nandini Hadker, Adrian Quartel, Robert D Steiner
{"title":"Quantifying preferences for urea cycle disorder treatments using a discrete choice experiment.","authors":"Josiah Edelblut, Jeffrey R Skaar, John Hilton, Matthew Seibt, Kyle Martin, Nandini Hadker, Adrian Quartel, Robert D Steiner","doi":"10.1080/13696998.2024.2330846","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aims: </strong>Urea cycle disorders (UCDs) can cause ammonia accumulation and central nervous system toxicity. Nitrogen-binding medications can be efficacious, but certain attributes may negatively impact adherence. This study sought to quantify the administration-related attributes influencing overall prescription selection and patient adherence.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A web-based, quantitative survey including discrete choice experiment (DCE) methodology captured responses from health care providers for patients with UCDs. A series of hypothetical treatment profile sets with attributes such as route of administration, taste/odor, preparation instructions, packaging, dose measurement, and weight use restrictions were presented. From 16 sets of 3 hypothetical product profiles, respondents evaluated attributes most preferred for prescription selection or patient adherence. Attributes assumed a higher overall preference if relative importance (RI) scores were >16.67% (the value if all attributes were of equal importance). Preference weight scores were assessed. A nine-point Likert scale assessed respondent attitudes, such as satisfaction.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 51 respondents completed the survey. Respondents reported dissatisfaction with current treatments (mean [SD] = 5.4 [1.7]). For prescription selection, four attributes achieved RI >16.67%: taste/odor (24%), weight restrictions (21%), preparation instructions (18%), and route of administration (17%). For adherence, three attributes related to administration achieved RI >16.67%: taste/odor (28%), preparation instructions (21%), and route of administration (17%). Preference weights for \"taste/odor masked\" were higher than \"not taste/odor masked\" for prescription selection (mean [SD]; 1.52 [1.10] vs -1.52 [1.10]) and treatment adherence (73.8 [55.2] vs -73.8 [55.2]).</p><p><strong>Limitations: </strong>This study contained a relatively small sample size. Survey respondent selection, the use of hypothetical product profiles, and exclusion of non-pharmacologic treatment options could have contributed to potential biases.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Among attributes tested, taste/odor was the most important attribute influencing overall preference for both prescribing and patient adherence, with taste/odor masking preferred. Optimizing nitrogen-binding medications through masking taste/odor may support improved patient adherence and outcomes in UCDs.</p>","PeriodicalId":16229,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Economics","volume":" ","pages":"506-517"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Medical Economics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13696998.2024.2330846","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/3/31 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Aims: Urea cycle disorders (UCDs) can cause ammonia accumulation and central nervous system toxicity. Nitrogen-binding medications can be efficacious, but certain attributes may negatively impact adherence. This study sought to quantify the administration-related attributes influencing overall prescription selection and patient adherence.
Methods: A web-based, quantitative survey including discrete choice experiment (DCE) methodology captured responses from health care providers for patients with UCDs. A series of hypothetical treatment profile sets with attributes such as route of administration, taste/odor, preparation instructions, packaging, dose measurement, and weight use restrictions were presented. From 16 sets of 3 hypothetical product profiles, respondents evaluated attributes most preferred for prescription selection or patient adherence. Attributes assumed a higher overall preference if relative importance (RI) scores were >16.67% (the value if all attributes were of equal importance). Preference weight scores were assessed. A nine-point Likert scale assessed respondent attitudes, such as satisfaction.
Results: A total of 51 respondents completed the survey. Respondents reported dissatisfaction with current treatments (mean [SD] = 5.4 [1.7]). For prescription selection, four attributes achieved RI >16.67%: taste/odor (24%), weight restrictions (21%), preparation instructions (18%), and route of administration (17%). For adherence, three attributes related to administration achieved RI >16.67%: taste/odor (28%), preparation instructions (21%), and route of administration (17%). Preference weights for "taste/odor masked" were higher than "not taste/odor masked" for prescription selection (mean [SD]; 1.52 [1.10] vs -1.52 [1.10]) and treatment adherence (73.8 [55.2] vs -73.8 [55.2]).
Limitations: This study contained a relatively small sample size. Survey respondent selection, the use of hypothetical product profiles, and exclusion of non-pharmacologic treatment options could have contributed to potential biases.
Conclusions: Among attributes tested, taste/odor was the most important attribute influencing overall preference for both prescribing and patient adherence, with taste/odor masking preferred. Optimizing nitrogen-binding medications through masking taste/odor may support improved patient adherence and outcomes in UCDs.
期刊介绍:
Journal of Medical Economics'' mission is to provide ethical, unbiased and rapid publication of quality content that is validated by rigorous peer review. The aim of Journal of Medical Economics is to serve the information needs of the pharmacoeconomics and healthcare research community, to help translate research advances into patient care and be a leader in transparency/disclosure by facilitating a collaborative and honest approach to publication.
Journal of Medical Economics publishes high-quality economic assessments of novel therapeutic and device interventions for an international audience