Patient-Patient Centered Outcomes Research最新文献

{"title":"A Novel Approach to Computing Preference Estimates for Different Treatment Pathways: An Application in Oncology.","authors":"Kathleen Beusterien, Oliver Will, Emuella Flood, Susan McCutcheon, deMauri S Mackie, Stella Mokiou","doi":"10.1007/s40271-024-00680-z","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s40271-024-00680-z","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Patients with cancer may progress through multiple treatments with differing adverse effect profiles. Moreover, pathways may be fixed or flexible in allowing for escalation or de-escalation of treatment depending on interim outcomes. We sought to develop a methodology capable of estimating preferences for the entirety of a pathway involving a sequence of different treatments.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Patients with early breast cancer completed an online discrete choice experiment to assess preferences for eight key early breast cancer attributes. Hierarchical Bayesian modeling was used to calculate attribute-level preference weights. Preference weights for hypothetical pathways were estimated by summing the respective weights for efficacy, flexible or fixed pathway, duration, administration regimen, and adverse event risk, the last two of which were time-adjusted by multiplying each weight by the proportion of time spent on a selected treatment.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Increases in the risk of a serious adverse event were most influential in treatment pathway preferences, followed by increases in efficacy and decreases in overall pathway duration. Patients preferred a flexible pathway versus a fixed pathway. Pathway preference estimates fluctuated in a logically consistent manner. Switching from a flexible to a fixed pathway yielded a significantly lower pathway preference. For this same pathway, when adjuvant treatment was replaced with a treatment with a more favorable toxicity profile and shorter duration, it offset the negative impact of the more toxic neoadjuvant chemotherapy.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This novel methodology accounts for patient preference throughout a sequence of treatments, allowing for comparison of preferences across complex treatment pathways.</p>","PeriodicalId":51271,"journal":{"name":"Patient-Patient Centered Outcomes Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11189976/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140141102","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"A Framework to Promote Implementation of Patient-Reported Outcomes in Institutions Caring for Vulnerable and Underserved Cancer Populations.","authors":"Anne L R Schuster, Norah L Crossnohere, Eric Adjei Boakye, Rebekah Angove, Billie Baldwin, Esteban A Barreto, Ronald C Chen, Theresa W Gillespie, Betty Hamilton, Nadine Jackson McCleary, Maimah Karmo, Tara Kaufmann, William Lee, Vikas Mehta, Larissa Meyer, Kriti Mittal, Leah Owens, Rachel Peterson, Andrea Pusic, Anne Marie Rainey, Angelique Richardson, Lauren Shapiro, Bethany Sibbitt, Cardinale Smith, Mary Vargo, Andrew Vickers, Michael Brundage, Claire Snyder","doi":"10.1007/s40271-024-00703-9","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-024-00703-9","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":51271,"journal":{"name":"Patient-Patient Centered Outcomes Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2024-06-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141441094","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Patients' Preferences for Sphingosine-1-Phosphate Receptor Modulators in Multiple Sclerosis Based on Clinical Management Considerations: A Choice Experiment.","authors":"Alexander Keenan, Chiara Whichello, Hoa H Le, David M Kern, Gabriela S Fernandez, Vicky Turner, Anup Das, Matthew Quaife, Amy Perrin Ross","doi":"10.1007/s40271-024-00699-2","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-024-00699-2","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Several sphingosine-1-phosphate receptor (S1PR) modulators are available in the US for treating relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis (RMS). Given that these S1PR modulators have similar efficacy and safety, patients may consider the clinical management characteristics of the S1PR modulators when deciding among treatments. However, none of the S1PR modulators is clearly superior in every aspect of clinical management, and for some treatments, clinical management varies based on a patient's comorbid health conditions (e.g., heart conditions [HC]).</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This study aimed to determine which S1PR modulator patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) would prefer based on clinical management considerations, and to estimate how different clinical management considerations might drive these preferences. Preferences were explored separately for patients with and without comorbid HC.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A multicriteria decision analysis was conducted on S1PR modulators approved to treat RMS: fingolimod, ozanimod, siponimod, and ponesimod. Clinical management preferences of patients with RRMS were elicited in a discrete choice experiment (DCE) in which participants repeatedly chose between hypothetical S1PR modulator profiles based on their clinical management attributes. Attributes included first-dose observations, genotyping, liver function tests, eye examinations, drug-drug interactions, interactions with antidepressants, interactions with foods high in tyramine, and immune system recovery time. Preferences were estimated separately for patients with HC and without HC (noHC). Marginal utilities were calculated from the DCE data for each attribute and level using a mixed logit model. In the multicriteria decision analysis, partial value scores were created by applying the marginal utilities for each attribute and level to the real-world profiles of S1PR modulators. Partial value scores were summed to determine an overall clinical management value score for each S1PR modulator.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Four hundred patients with RRMS completed the DCE. Ponesimod had the highest overall value score for patients both without (n = 341) and with (n = 59) HC (noHC: 5.1; HC: 4.0), followed by siponimod (noHC: 4.9; HC: 3.3), fingolimod (noHC: 3.4; HC: 2.8), and ozanimod (noHC: 0.9; HC: 0.8). Overall, immune system recovery time contributed the highest partial value scores (noHC: up to 1.9 points; HC: up to 1.2 points), followed by the number of drug-drug interactions (noHC: up to 1.2 points; HC: up to 1.7 points).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>When considering the clinical management of S1PR modulators, the average patient with RRMS is expected to choose a treatment with shorter immune system recovery time and fewer interactions with other drugs. Patients both with and without heart conditions are likely to prefer the clinical management profile of ponesimod ove","PeriodicalId":51271,"journal":{"name":"Patient-Patient Centered Outcomes Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.6,"publicationDate":"2024-05-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140923686","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Putting the Choice in Choice Tasks: Incorporating Preference Elicitation Tasks in Health Preference Research.","authors":"Jennifer A Whitty, Emily Lancsar, Richard De Abreu Lourenco, Kirsten Howard, Elly A Stolk","doi":"10.1007/s40271-024-00696-5","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-024-00696-5","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Choice-based preference elicitation methods such as the discrete choice experiment (DCE) present hypothetical choices to respondents, with an expectation that these hypothetical choices accurately reflect a 'real world' health-related decision context and that consequently the choice data can be held to be a true representation of the respondent's health or treatment preferences. For this to be the case, careful consideration needs to be given to the format of the choice task in a choice experiment. The overarching aim of this paper is to highlight important aspects to consider when designing and 'setting up' the choice tasks to be presented to respondents in a DCE. This includes the importance of considering the potential impact of format (e.g. choice context, choice set presentation and size) as well as choice set content (e.g. labelled and unlabelled choice sets and inclusion of reference alternatives) and choice questions (stated choice versus additional questions designed to explore complete preference orders) on the preference estimates that are elicited from studies. We endeavoure to instil a holistic approach to choice task design that considers format alongside content, experimental design and analysis.</p>","PeriodicalId":51271,"journal":{"name":"Patient-Patient Centered Outcomes Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.6,"publicationDate":"2024-05-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140923688","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Development and Testing of a Chronic-Disease Patient Experience Mapping Toolbox.","authors":"Elisabeth M Oehrlein, Silke Schoch, Kelsie Majercak, Laura Elisabeth Gressler, Ryan C Costantino, T Rosie Love, Eleanor M Perfetto","doi":"10.1007/s40271-023-00658-3","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s40271-023-00658-3","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Stakeholders increasingly expect research and care delivery to be guided by and to optimize patient experiences. However, standardized tools to engage patients to gather high-quality data about their experiences, priorities, and desired outcomes are not publicly available. The objective of this study was to develop and test a Toolbox with a disease-agnostic interview guide template and accompanying resources to assist researchers in engaging patients living with chronic disease in a dialogue about their experiences.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Guided by a multidisciplinary workgroup, a targeted literature review (PubMed) was conducted, followed by group discussions to identify/thematically organize patient experience concepts, development of a conceptual model, and drafting of an interview guide template and patient-facing visual. Materials were tested/refined via cognitive (n = 5) and pilot (n = 30) interviews conducted virtually with US patients diagnosed with chronic/potentially disabling conditions from December 2020 to April 2021. Patient-facing tools were reviewed by health literacy experts for applicability/accessibility. English-speaking adults who self-reported receiving a chronic condition diagnosis at least 6 months prior participated in a 60-90 min interview.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Patient experience concepts were organized thematically under three domains: (1) life before a diagnosis, (2) experiences getting a diagnosis, and (3) experiences living with a diagnosis. A plain language consent sheet template, interview guide template, and patient experience conceptual model were developed and revised based on input from interviewees, interviewers, and the workgroup.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>A disease-agnostic patient-engagement Toolbox was developed and tested to capture patient experience data. These materials can be customized based on study objectives and leveraged by various stakeholders to identify opportunities to enhance the patient centricity of healthcare delivery and research.</p>","PeriodicalId":51271,"journal":{"name":"Patient-Patient Centered Outcomes Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.6,"publicationDate":"2024-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11039502/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139089357","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Using Patient Preferences in Health Technology Assessment: Evaluating Quality-Adjusted Survival Equivalents (QASE) for the Quantification of Non-health Benefits.","authors":"Kevin Marsh, Hannah Collacott, Jim Thomson, Jonathan Mauer, Stephen Watt, Koonal Shah, Brett Hauber, Louis Garrison, Mendwas Dzingina","doi":"10.1007/s40271-024-00676-9","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s40271-024-00676-9","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Interest in using patient preference (PP) data alongside traditional economic models in health technology assessment (HTA) is growing, including using PP data to quantify non-health benefits. However, this is limited by a lack of standardised methods. In this article, we describe a method for using discrete choice experiment (DCE) data to estimate the value of non-health benefits in terms of quality-adjusted survival equivalence (QASE), which is consistent with the concept of value prevalent among HTA agencies. We describe how PP data can be used to estimate QASE, assess the ability to test the face-validity of QASE estimates of changes in mode of administration calculated from five published DCE oncology studies and review the methodological and normative considerations associated with using QASE to support HTA. We conclude that QASE may have some methodological advantages over alternative methods, but this requires DCEs to estimate second-order effects between length and quality of life. In addition, empirical work has yet to be undertaken to substantiate this advantage and demonstrate the validity of QASE. Further work is also required to align QASE with normative objectives of HTA agencies. Estimating QASE would also have implications for the conduct of DCEs, including standardising and defining more clear attribute definitions.</p>","PeriodicalId":51271,"journal":{"name":"Patient-Patient Centered Outcomes Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.6,"publicationDate":"2024-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139991695","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The Limitations of EQ-5D as a Clinical Outcome Assessment Tool.","authors":"Ari Gnanasakthy, Carla Romano DeMuro","doi":"10.1007/s40271-024-00683-w","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s40271-024-00683-w","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":51271,"journal":{"name":"Patient-Patient Centered Outcomes Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.6,"publicationDate":"2024-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140102808","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Correction to: A Review of the Use of EQ-5D for Clinical Outcome Assessment in Health Technology Assessment, Regulatory Claims, and Published Literature.","authors":"Caroline Shaw, Louise Longworth, Bryan Bennett, Louise McEntee-Richardson, James W Shaw","doi":"10.1007/s40271-024-00682-x","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s40271-024-00682-x","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":51271,"journal":{"name":"Patient-Patient Centered Outcomes Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.6,"publicationDate":"2024-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11039513/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139984503","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"From Qualitative Research to Quantitative Preference Elicitation: An Example in Invasive Meningococcal Disease.","authors":"Joshua Coulter, Chiara Whichello, Sebastian Heidenreich, Brett Hauber, Christine Michaels-Igbokwe, Joseph C Cappelleri, Paula Peyrani, Jessica Vespa Presa, Malavika Venkatraman, Katharina Schley","doi":"10.1007/s40271-024-00677-8","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s40271-024-00677-8","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Qualitative research is fundamental for designing discrete choice experiments (DCEs) but is often underreported in the preference literature. We developed a DCE to elicit preferences for vaccination against invasive meningococcal disease (IMD) among adolescents and young people (AYP) and parents and legal guardians (PLG) in the United States. This article reports the targeted literature review and qualitative interviews that informed the DCE design and demonstrates how to apply the recent reporting guidelines for qualitative developmental work in preference studies.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study included two parts: a targeted literature review and qualitative interviews. The Medline and Embase databases were searched for quantitative and qualitative studies on IMD and immunization. The results of the targeted literature review informed a qualitative interview guide. Sixty-minute, online, semi-structured interviews with AYP and PLG were used to identify themes related to willingness to be vaccinated against IMD. Participants were recruited through a third-party recruiter's database and commercial online panels. Interviews included vignettes about IMD and vaccinations and three thresholding exercises examining the effect of incidence rate, disability rate, and fatality rate on vaccination preferences. Participant responses related to the themes were counted.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The targeted literature review identified 31 concepts that were synthesized into six topics for the qualitative interviews. Twenty AYP aged 16-23 years and 20 PLG of adolescents aged 11-17 years were interviewed. Four themes related to willingness to be vaccinated emerged: attitudes towards vaccination, knowledge and information, perception of IMD, and vaccine attributes. Most participants were concerned about IMD (AYP 60%; PLG 85%) and had positive views of vaccination (AYP 80%; PLG 60%). Ninety percent of AYP and 75% of PLG always chose vaccination over no vaccination, independent of IMD incidence rate, disability rate, or fatality rate.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Willingness to be vaccinated against IMD was affected by vaccine attributes but largely insensitive to IMD incidence and severity. This article provides an example of how to apply the recent reporting guidelines for qualitative developmental work in preference studies, with 21 out of 22 items in the guidelines being considered.</p>","PeriodicalId":51271,"journal":{"name":"Patient-Patient Centered Outcomes Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.6,"publicationDate":"2024-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11039532/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139934071","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Exploring the Factors that Drive Clinical Negligence Claims: Stated Preferences of Those Who Have Experienced Unintended Harm.","authors":"Nyantara Wickramasekera, Arne Risa Hole, Donna Rowen, Allan Wailoo, Anju D Keetharuth","doi":"10.1007/s40271-024-00674-x","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s40271-024-00674-x","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Better understanding of the factors that influence patients to make a financial claim for compensation is required to inform policy decisions. This study aimed to assess the relative importance of factors that influence those who have experienced a patient safety incident (PSI) to make a claim for compensation.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Participants completed an online discrete choice experiment (DCE) involving 10 single profile tasks where they chose whether or not to file a claim. DCE data were modelled using logistic, mixed logit and latent class regressions; scenario analyses, external validity, and willingness to accept were also conducted.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 1029 participants in the United Kingdom responded to the survey. An appropriate apology and a satisfactory investigation reduced the likelihood of claiming. Respondents were more likely to claim if they could hold those responsible accountable, if the process was simple and straightforward, if the compensation amount was higher, if the likelihood of compensation was high or uncertain, if the time to receive a decision was quicker, and if they used the government compensation scheme. Men are more likely to claim for low impact PSIs.</p><p><strong>Discussion and conclusions: </strong>The actions taken by the health service after a PSI, and people's perceptions about the probability of success and the size of potential reward, can influence whether a claim is made. Results show the importance of giving an appropriate apology and conducting a satisfactory investigation. This stresses the importance around how patients are treated after a PSI in influencing the clinical negligence claims that are made.</p>","PeriodicalId":51271,"journal":{"name":"Patient-Patient Centered Outcomes Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.6,"publicationDate":"2024-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11039422/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139652151","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}