通过离散选择实验激发患者对重度抑郁障碍治疗的偏好:系统回顾。

IF 3.4 3区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Susan dosReis, Dafne Espinal Pena, Alexandra Fincannon, Emily F Gorman, Alejandro Amill-Rosario
{"title":"通过离散选择实验激发患者对重度抑郁障碍治疗的偏好:系统回顾。","authors":"Susan dosReis, Dafne Espinal Pena, Alexandra Fincannon, Emily F Gorman, Alejandro Amill-Rosario","doi":"10.1007/s40271-024-00706-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Individual preferences for treatment options for major depressive disorder can impact therapeutic decision making, adherence, and ultimately outcomes.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This systematic review of discrete choice experiments (DCEs) on patient preferences for major depressive disorder treatment assessed the range of DCE applications in major depressive disorder to document patient stakeholder involvement in DCE development and to identify the relative importance of treatment attributes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched MEDLINE via Ovid (1946-present), EMBASE (Elsevier interface), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Wiley interface), and PsycINFO (EBSCO interface) databases on 29 May, 2024. Covidence software facilitated the review, which four members completed independently. The review was conducted in two phases: title and abstract and then a full-text review. We used an established quality reporting tool to evaluate selected articles. The Covidence extraction tool was adapted for this study.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 19 articles were included in this review. Most studies elicited preferences for depression treatment (63.2%) and care delivery (10.5%). Two assessed willingness to pay. Individuals prefer a combination of medicine and counseling over each treatment alone. Treatment efficacy, relapse prevention, and symptom relief were among the most important attributes. Individuals were willing to accept larger risks to achieve symptom improvement. Few studies examined preference heterogeneity with latent subgroups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Discrete choice experiments for major depressive disorder treatment preferences enable an assessment of trade-offs for first-line therapeutic options. Patient stakeholders are infrequently involved as collaborators in the DCE development. Few examined preference heterogeneity among subgroups.</p>","PeriodicalId":51271,"journal":{"name":"Patient-Patient Centered Outcomes Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Discrete Choice Experiments to Elicit Patient Preferences for the Treatment of Major Depressive Disorder: A Systematic Review.\",\"authors\":\"Susan dosReis, Dafne Espinal Pena, Alexandra Fincannon, Emily F Gorman, Alejandro Amill-Rosario\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s40271-024-00706-6\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Individual preferences for treatment options for major depressive disorder can impact therapeutic decision making, adherence, and ultimately outcomes.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This systematic review of discrete choice experiments (DCEs) on patient preferences for major depressive disorder treatment assessed the range of DCE applications in major depressive disorder to document patient stakeholder involvement in DCE development and to identify the relative importance of treatment attributes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched MEDLINE via Ovid (1946-present), EMBASE (Elsevier interface), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Wiley interface), and PsycINFO (EBSCO interface) databases on 29 May, 2024. Covidence software facilitated the review, which four members completed independently. The review was conducted in two phases: title and abstract and then a full-text review. We used an established quality reporting tool to evaluate selected articles. The Covidence extraction tool was adapted for this study.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 19 articles were included in this review. Most studies elicited preferences for depression treatment (63.2%) and care delivery (10.5%). Two assessed willingness to pay. Individuals prefer a combination of medicine and counseling over each treatment alone. Treatment efficacy, relapse prevention, and symptom relief were among the most important attributes. Individuals were willing to accept larger risks to achieve symptom improvement. Few studies examined preference heterogeneity with latent subgroups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Discrete choice experiments for major depressive disorder treatment preferences enable an assessment of trade-offs for first-line therapeutic options. Patient stakeholders are infrequently involved as collaborators in the DCE development. Few examined preference heterogeneity among subgroups.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51271,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Patient-Patient Centered Outcomes Research\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Patient-Patient Centered Outcomes Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-024-00706-6\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"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/s40271-024-00706-6","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:个人对重度抑郁症治疗方案的偏好会影响治疗决策的制定以及治疗效果:个人对重度抑郁障碍治疗方案的偏好会影响治疗决策、依从性以及最终疗效:本系统性综述对重度抑郁障碍患者治疗偏好的离散选择实验(DCE)进行了评估,以记录重度抑郁障碍患者利益相关者参与 DCE 开发的情况,并确定治疗属性的相对重要性:我们于2024年5月29日通过Ovid检索了MEDLINE(1946年至今)、EMBASE(Elsevier界面)、Cochrane对照试验中央登记(Wiley界面)和PsycINFO(EBSCO界面)数据库。Covidence 软件为审稿提供了便利,四名成员独立完成了审稿工作。综述分两个阶段进行:标题和摘要,然后是全文综述。我们使用既定的质量报告工具对所选文章进行评估。本研究采用了 Covidence 提取工具:本综述共收录了 19 篇文章。大多数研究对抑郁症治疗(63.2%)和护理服务(10.5%)进行了偏好调查。有两项研究对支付意愿进行了评估。与单独使用每种治疗方法相比,个人更倾向于药物和心理咨询相结合的治疗方法。治疗效果、预防复发和症状缓解是最重要的属性。为了改善症状,患者愿意接受更大的风险。很少有研究对潜在亚组的偏好异质性进行研究:针对重度抑郁障碍治疗偏好的离散选择实验能够评估一线治疗方案的权衡。患者利益相关者很少作为合作者参与离散选择实验的开发。很少有人研究亚组之间的偏好异质性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Discrete Choice Experiments to Elicit Patient Preferences for the Treatment of Major Depressive Disorder: A Systematic Review.

Discrete Choice Experiments to Elicit Patient Preferences for the Treatment of Major Depressive Disorder: A Systematic Review.

Background: Individual preferences for treatment options for major depressive disorder can impact therapeutic decision making, adherence, and ultimately outcomes.

Objectives: This systematic review of discrete choice experiments (DCEs) on patient preferences for major depressive disorder treatment assessed the range of DCE applications in major depressive disorder to document patient stakeholder involvement in DCE development and to identify the relative importance of treatment attributes.

Methods: We searched MEDLINE via Ovid (1946-present), EMBASE (Elsevier interface), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Wiley interface), and PsycINFO (EBSCO interface) databases on 29 May, 2024. Covidence software facilitated the review, which four members completed independently. The review was conducted in two phases: title and abstract and then a full-text review. We used an established quality reporting tool to evaluate selected articles. The Covidence extraction tool was adapted for this study.

Results: A total of 19 articles were included in this review. Most studies elicited preferences for depression treatment (63.2%) and care delivery (10.5%). Two assessed willingness to pay. Individuals prefer a combination of medicine and counseling over each treatment alone. Treatment efficacy, relapse prevention, and symptom relief were among the most important attributes. Individuals were willing to accept larger risks to achieve symptom improvement. Few studies examined preference heterogeneity with latent subgroups.

Conclusions: Discrete choice experiments for major depressive disorder treatment preferences enable an assessment of trade-offs for first-line therapeutic options. Patient stakeholders are infrequently involved as collaborators in the DCE development. Few examined preference heterogeneity among subgroups.

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
Patient-Patient Centered Outcomes Research
Patient-Patient Centered Outcomes Research HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-
CiteScore
6.60
自引率
8.30%
发文量
44
审稿时长
>12 weeks
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.
×
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