患者对心脏起搏器植入的需求和偏好:疾病和医疗器械特征的定性研究为定量偏好研究提供信息。

IF 3.1 3区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Alice Vanneste, Peter Sinnaeve, Isabelle Huys, Tom Adriaenssens, Christophe Garweg
{"title":"患者对心脏起搏器植入的需求和偏好:疾病和医疗器械特征的定性研究为定量偏好研究提供信息。","authors":"Alice Vanneste, Peter Sinnaeve, Isabelle Huys, Tom Adriaenssens, Christophe Garweg","doi":"10.1007/s40271-025-00767-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Cardiac pacemakers are the only long-term treatment for symptomatic bradyarrhythmia. Despite technological advances, conventional pacemakers still face significant device and procedure-related complications. Recently, leadless pacing systems have been developed to address these issues.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>Given the benefits and risks of both pacemaker devices, patient preference studies (PPS) are valuable to understand patients' priorities. This study reports qualitative insights that are fundamental to informing the development of attributes and levels of a subsequent quantitative PPS.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This qualitative phase of a PPS consisted of semi-structured interviews with pacemaker patients. To enhance preference validation, we applied a novel combined approach where patients both scored and ranked disease and treatment-related characteristics. Interviews were transcribed ad verbatim and analyzed using thematic framework analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The study included 18 Belgian pacemaker patients (median age = 81 years, 56% being male). Our combined approach identified a stable set of six consistently prioritized characteristics: improvements in (i) dyspnea, (ii) fatigue, (iii) exercise intolerance, alongside device features including (iv) a long battery lifetime, (v) limited risk of long-term complications, and (vi) integration of the latest technology. In contrast, characteristics such as the device location and physical appearance were considered less important compared with the life-saving functionality and quality of life improvements. Patients generally trusted their physicians and showed relatively little interest in deciding the device type.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Although patients were not actively concerned about their pacemaker treatment, they valued specific disease and treatment-related characteristics important to them. The patient-relevant characteristics identified in this study, derived directly from patients themselves, can inform device development and guide downstream evaluations to foster more informed, patient-centered decision-making that reflects patients' needs and preferences.</p>","PeriodicalId":51271,"journal":{"name":"Patient-Patient Centered Outcomes Research","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Patients' Needs and Preferences for Cardiac Pacemaker Implantation: A Qualitative Study on Disease and Medical Device Characteristics to Inform a Quantitative Preference Study.\",\"authors\":\"Alice Vanneste, Peter Sinnaeve, Isabelle Huys, Tom Adriaenssens, Christophe Garweg\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s40271-025-00767-1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Cardiac pacemakers are the only long-term treatment for symptomatic bradyarrhythmia. Despite technological advances, conventional pacemakers still face significant device and procedure-related complications. Recently, leadless pacing systems have been developed to address these issues.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>Given the benefits and risks of both pacemaker devices, patient preference studies (PPS) are valuable to understand patients' priorities. This study reports qualitative insights that are fundamental to informing the development of attributes and levels of a subsequent quantitative PPS.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This qualitative phase of a PPS consisted of semi-structured interviews with pacemaker patients. To enhance preference validation, we applied a novel combined approach where patients both scored and ranked disease and treatment-related characteristics. Interviews were transcribed ad verbatim and analyzed using thematic framework analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The study included 18 Belgian pacemaker patients (median age = 81 years, 56% being male). Our combined approach identified a stable set of six consistently prioritized characteristics: improvements in (i) dyspnea, (ii) fatigue, (iii) exercise intolerance, alongside device features including (iv) a long battery lifetime, (v) limited risk of long-term complications, and (vi) integration of the latest technology. In contrast, characteristics such as the device location and physical appearance were considered less important compared with the life-saving functionality and quality of life improvements. Patients generally trusted their physicians and showed relatively little interest in deciding the device type.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Although patients were not actively concerned about their pacemaker treatment, they valued specific disease and treatment-related characteristics important to them. The patient-relevant characteristics identified in this study, derived directly from patients themselves, can inform device development and guide downstream evaluations to foster more informed, patient-centered decision-making that reflects patients' needs and preferences.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51271,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Patient-Patient Centered Outcomes Research\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-14\",\"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/s40271-025-00767-1\",\"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/s40271-025-00767-1","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:心脏起搏器是治疗症状性慢性心律失常的唯一长期治疗方法。尽管技术进步,传统的起搏器仍然面临着重大的设备和程序相关的并发症。最近,无引线起搏系统被开发来解决这些问题。目的:考虑到两种起搏器的益处和风险,患者偏好研究(PPS)对了解患者的优先级有价值。本研究报告了定性的见解,这些见解对随后定量PPS的属性和水平的发展至关重要。方法:PPS的这个定性阶段包括对起搏器患者的半结构化访谈。为了加强偏好验证,我们采用了一种新的联合方法,患者对疾病和治疗相关特征进行评分和排名。访谈内容逐字记录,并采用主题框架分析进行分析。结果:本研究纳入18例比利时起搏器患者(中位年龄为81岁,56%为男性)。我们的联合方法确定了一组稳定的六个始终优先的特征:改善(i)呼吸困难,(ii)疲劳,(iii)运动不耐受,以及设备功能包括(iv)电池寿命长,(v)长期并发症风险有限,以及(vi)集成最新技术。相比之下,与救生功能和生活质量改善相比,诸如设备位置和物理外观等特征被认为不那么重要。患者普遍信任他们的医生,对决定设备类型的兴趣相对较小。结论:虽然患者并不积极关注他们的起搏器治疗,但他们重视对他们重要的特定疾病和治疗相关特征。本研究中确定的患者相关特征直接来源于患者自身,可以为设备开发提供信息,并指导下游评估,以促进更明智、以患者为中心的决策,反映患者的需求和偏好。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Patients' Needs and Preferences for Cardiac Pacemaker Implantation: A Qualitative Study on Disease and Medical Device Characteristics to Inform a Quantitative Preference Study.

Background: Cardiac pacemakers are the only long-term treatment for symptomatic bradyarrhythmia. Despite technological advances, conventional pacemakers still face significant device and procedure-related complications. Recently, leadless pacing systems have been developed to address these issues.

Objective: Given the benefits and risks of both pacemaker devices, patient preference studies (PPS) are valuable to understand patients' priorities. This study reports qualitative insights that are fundamental to informing the development of attributes and levels of a subsequent quantitative PPS.

Methods: This qualitative phase of a PPS consisted of semi-structured interviews with pacemaker patients. To enhance preference validation, we applied a novel combined approach where patients both scored and ranked disease and treatment-related characteristics. Interviews were transcribed ad verbatim and analyzed using thematic framework analysis.

Results: The study included 18 Belgian pacemaker patients (median age = 81 years, 56% being male). Our combined approach identified a stable set of six consistently prioritized characteristics: improvements in (i) dyspnea, (ii) fatigue, (iii) exercise intolerance, alongside device features including (iv) a long battery lifetime, (v) limited risk of long-term complications, and (vi) integration of the latest technology. In contrast, characteristics such as the device location and physical appearance were considered less important compared with the life-saving functionality and quality of life improvements. Patients generally trusted their physicians and showed relatively little interest in deciding the device type.

Conclusions: Although patients were not actively concerned about their pacemaker treatment, they valued specific disease and treatment-related characteristics important to them. The patient-relevant characteristics identified in this study, derived directly from patients themselves, can inform device development and guide downstream evaluations to foster more informed, patient-centered decision-making that reflects patients' needs and preferences.

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:604180095
Book学术官方微信