重度抑郁障碍治疗成本效益分析中的患者知情价值要素:文献回顾与综述》。

IF 4.9 2区 医学 Q1 ECONOMICS
Julia F Slejko, T Joseph Mattingly, Alexandra Wilson, Richard Xie, Richard H Chapman, Alejandro Amill-Rosario, Susan dosReis
{"title":"重度抑郁障碍治疗成本效益分析中的患者知情价值要素:文献回顾与综述》。","authors":"Julia F Slejko, T Joseph Mattingly, Alexandra Wilson, Richard Xie, Richard H Chapman, Alejandro Amill-Rosario, Susan dosReis","doi":"10.1016/j.jval.2024.05.017","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Prior work identified 6 key value elements (attributes of treatment and desired outcomes) for individuals living with major depressive disorder (MDD) in managing their condition: mode of treatment, time to treatment helpfulness, MDD relief, quality of work, interaction with others, and affordability. The objective of our study was to identify whether previous cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) for MDD treatment addressed any of these value elements. A secondary objective was to identify whether any study engaged patients, family members, and caregivers in the model development process.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a systematic literature review to identify published model-based CEAs. We compared the elements of the published studies with the MDD patient value elements elicited in prior work to identify gaps and areas for future research.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 86 published CEAs, we found that 7 included patient out-of-pocket costs, and 32 included measures of productivity, which were both priorities for individuals with MDD. We found that only 2 studies elicited measures from patients for their model, and 2 studies engaged patients in the modeling process.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Published CEA models for MDD treatment do not regularly include value elements that are a priority for this patient population nor do they include patients in their modeling process. Flexible models that can accommodate elements consistent with patient experience are needed, and a multistakeholder engagement approach would help accomplish this.</p>","PeriodicalId":23508,"journal":{"name":"Value in Health","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Patient-Informed Value Elements in Cost-Effectiveness Analyses of Major Depressive Disorder Treatment: A Literature Review and Synthesis.\",\"authors\":\"Julia F Slejko, T Joseph Mattingly, Alexandra Wilson, Richard Xie, Richard H Chapman, Alejandro Amill-Rosario, Susan dosReis\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jval.2024.05.017\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Prior work identified 6 key value elements (attributes of treatment and desired outcomes) for individuals living with major depressive disorder (MDD) in managing their condition: mode of treatment, time to treatment helpfulness, MDD relief, quality of work, interaction with others, and affordability. The objective of our study was to identify whether previous cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) for MDD treatment addressed any of these value elements. A secondary objective was to identify whether any study engaged patients, family members, and caregivers in the model development process.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a systematic literature review to identify published model-based CEAs. We compared the elements of the published studies with the MDD patient value elements elicited in prior work to identify gaps and areas for future research.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 86 published CEAs, we found that 7 included patient out-of-pocket costs, and 32 included measures of productivity, which were both priorities for individuals with MDD. We found that only 2 studies elicited measures from patients for their model, and 2 studies engaged patients in the modeling process.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Published CEA models for MDD treatment do not regularly include value elements that are a priority for this patient population nor do they include patients in their modeling process. Flexible models that can accommodate elements consistent with patient experience are needed, and a multistakeholder engagement approach would help accomplish this.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23508,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Value in Health\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Value in Health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2024.05.017\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Value in Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2024.05.017","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目标:先前的研究确定了重度抑郁障碍(MDD)患者在控制病情方面的六个关键价值要素(治疗属性和预期结果):治疗方式、治疗时间、MDD 缓解、工作质量、与他人的互动以及可负担性。我们研究的目的是确定以往的 MDD 治疗成本效益分析 (CEA) 是否涉及到这些价值要素中的任何一个。次要目标是确定是否有研究让患者、家庭成员和护理人员参与到模型开发过程中:我们进行了系统的文献综述,以确定已发表的基于模型的 CEA。我们将已发表研究的要素与之前工作中提出的 MDD 患者价值要素进行了比较,以确定差距和未来研究的领域:在已发表的 86 项 CEA 中,我们发现有 7 项包含了患者的自付费用,32 项包含了生产力衡量标准,而这两项对于 MDD 患者来说都是优先考虑的因素。我们发现,只有两项研究从患者那里获得了模型的衡量标准,还有两项研究让患者参与了建模过程:结论:已发表的 MDD 治疗的 CEA 模型并不经常包含这类患者优先考虑的价值要素,也没有让患者参与建模过程。我们需要灵活的模型,以适应符合患者体验的要素,而多方利益相关者参与的方法将有助于实现这一目标。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Patient-Informed Value Elements in Cost-Effectiveness Analyses of Major Depressive Disorder Treatment: A Literature Review and Synthesis.

Objectives: Prior work identified 6 key value elements (attributes of treatment and desired outcomes) for individuals living with major depressive disorder (MDD) in managing their condition: mode of treatment, time to treatment helpfulness, MDD relief, quality of work, interaction with others, and affordability. The objective of our study was to identify whether previous cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) for MDD treatment addressed any of these value elements. A secondary objective was to identify whether any study engaged patients, family members, and caregivers in the model development process.

Methods: We conducted a systematic literature review to identify published model-based CEAs. We compared the elements of the published studies with the MDD patient value elements elicited in prior work to identify gaps and areas for future research.

Results: Of 86 published CEAs, we found that 7 included patient out-of-pocket costs, and 32 included measures of productivity, which were both priorities for individuals with MDD. We found that only 2 studies elicited measures from patients for their model, and 2 studies engaged patients in the modeling process.

Conclusions: Published CEA models for MDD treatment do not regularly include value elements that are a priority for this patient population nor do they include patients in their modeling process. Flexible models that can accommodate elements consistent with patient experience are needed, and a multistakeholder engagement approach would help accomplish this.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Value in Health
Value in Health 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
6.90
自引率
6.70%
发文量
3064
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Value in Health contains original research articles for pharmacoeconomics, health economics, and outcomes research (clinical, economic, and patient-reported outcomes/preference-based research), as well as conceptual and health policy articles that provide valuable information for health care decision-makers as well as the research community. As the official journal of ISPOR, Value in Health provides a forum for researchers, as well as health care decision-makers to translate outcomes research into health care decisions.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信