Katja C Heinz, Charlotte Beaudart, Damon Willems, Mickaël Hiligsmann
{"title":"特应性皮炎治疗偏好研究：定量研究的系统回顾。","authors":"Katja C Heinz, Charlotte Beaudart, Damon Willems, Mickaël Hiligsmann","doi":"10.1007/s40271-024-00698-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Treatment preference research can support shared and informed decision making for currently available atopic dermatitis (AD) treatments, and simultaneously guide research and development for future therapies. In this systematic literature review, we aimed to provide an overview of preferences for AD treatments.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This systematic literature review was conducted in the Medline and Embase (via Ovid) databases, supplemented by manual searching. Quantitative research published from 2010 to September 2023 that investigated preferences for AD treatments were included. Quality assessment was conducted by using the purpose, respondents, explanation, findings, significance checklist, and a checklist developed by the Professional Society for Health Economics and Outcomes Research.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In total, 207 references were screened after removing duplicates and 15 studies were included. Most studies were conducted in the US, followed by European countries. On average, people directly or indirectly affected by AD rate efficacy and treatment-related risk as the most important criteria when choosing an AD therapy. Participants are willing to increase risks in order to have a higher chance of achieving a certain benefit, e.g. reduction in itch or clearer skin. Participants have preferences for different modes of administration. On average, 68% (all full-text studies) and 87% (only discrete choice experiments [DCEs]) of quality criteria per reference were rated as fulfilled. DCEs received generally higher quality assessment scores than non-DCEs.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This review revealed that AD treatment preference research is limited. Diverse study designs hampered comparison and synthesis of the results. We recommend conducting more DCEs in this field to increase the likelihood of AD patients receiving the therapy that best fits their individual needs and preferences.</p><p><strong>Clinical trials registration: </strong>This protocol was published in PROSPERO (ID: CRD42023468757).</p>","PeriodicalId":51271,"journal":{"name":"Patient-Patient Centered Outcomes Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11343911/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Treatment Preference Research in Atopic Dermatitis: A Systematic Review of Quantitative Studies.\",\"authors\":\"Katja C Heinz, Charlotte Beaudart, Damon Willems, Mickaël Hiligsmann\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s40271-024-00698-3\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Treatment preference research can support shared and informed decision making for currently available atopic dermatitis (AD) treatments, and simultaneously guide research and development for future therapies. In this systematic literature review, we aimed to provide an overview of preferences for AD treatments.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This systematic literature review was conducted in the Medline and Embase (via Ovid) databases, supplemented by manual searching. Quantitative research published from 2010 to September 2023 that investigated preferences for AD treatments were included. Quality assessment was conducted by using the purpose, respondents, explanation, findings, significance checklist, and a checklist developed by the Professional Society for Health Economics and Outcomes Research.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In total, 207 references were screened after removing duplicates and 15 studies were included. Most studies were conducted in the US, followed by European countries. On average, people directly or indirectly affected by AD rate efficacy and treatment-related risk as the most important criteria when choosing an AD therapy. Participants are willing to increase risks in order to have a higher chance of achieving a certain benefit, e.g. reduction in itch or clearer skin. Participants have preferences for different modes of administration. On average, 68% (all full-text studies) and 87% (only discrete choice experiments [DCEs]) of quality criteria per reference were rated as fulfilled. DCEs received generally higher quality assessment scores than non-DCEs.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This review revealed that AD treatment preference research is limited. Diverse study designs hampered comparison and synthesis of the results. We recommend conducting more DCEs in this field to increase the likelihood of AD patients receiving the therapy that best fits their individual needs and preferences.</p><p><strong>Clinical trials registration: </strong>This protocol was published in PROSPERO (ID: CRD42023468757).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51271,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Patient-Patient Centered Outcomes Research\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11343911/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Patient-Patient Centered Outcomes Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-024-00698-3\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/5/9 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Patient-Patient Centered Outcomes Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-024-00698-3","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/5/9 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
Treatment Preference Research in Atopic Dermatitis: A Systematic Review of Quantitative Studies.
Background: Treatment preference research can support shared and informed decision making for currently available atopic dermatitis (AD) treatments, and simultaneously guide research and development for future therapies. In this systematic literature review, we aimed to provide an overview of preferences for AD treatments.
Methods: This systematic literature review was conducted in the Medline and Embase (via Ovid) databases, supplemented by manual searching. Quantitative research published from 2010 to September 2023 that investigated preferences for AD treatments were included. Quality assessment was conducted by using the purpose, respondents, explanation, findings, significance checklist, and a checklist developed by the Professional Society for Health Economics and Outcomes Research.
Results: In total, 207 references were screened after removing duplicates and 15 studies were included. Most studies were conducted in the US, followed by European countries. On average, people directly or indirectly affected by AD rate efficacy and treatment-related risk as the most important criteria when choosing an AD therapy. Participants are willing to increase risks in order to have a higher chance of achieving a certain benefit, e.g. reduction in itch or clearer skin. Participants have preferences for different modes of administration. On average, 68% (all full-text studies) and 87% (only discrete choice experiments [DCEs]) of quality criteria per reference were rated as fulfilled. DCEs received generally higher quality assessment scores than non-DCEs.
Conclusions: This review revealed that AD treatment preference research is limited. Diverse study designs hampered comparison and synthesis of the results. We recommend conducting more DCEs in this field to increase the likelihood of AD patients receiving the therapy that best fits their individual needs and preferences.
Clinical trials registration: This protocol was published in PROSPERO (ID: CRD42023468757).
期刊介绍：
The Patient provides a venue for scientifically rigorous, timely, and relevant research to promote the development, evaluation and implementation of therapies, technologies, and innovations that will enhance the patient experience. It is an international forum for research that advances and/or applies qualitative or quantitative methods to promote the generation, synthesis, or interpretation of evidence.
The journal has specific interest in receiving original research, reviews and commentaries related to qualitative and mixed methods research, stated-preference methods, patient reported outcomes, and shared decision making.
Advances in regulatory science, patient-focused drug development, patient-centered benefit-risk and health technology assessment will also be considered.
Additional digital features (including animated abstracts, video abstracts, slide decks, audio slides, instructional videos, infographics, podcasts and animations) can be published with articles; these are designed to increase the visibility, readership and educational value of the journal’s content. In addition, articles published in The Patient may be accompanied by plain language summaries to assist readers who have some knowledge of, but not in-depth expertise in, the area to understand important medical advances.
All manuscripts are subject to peer review by international experts.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
