Rational decision-making in mental health: the role of systematic reviews

Patient preferences for the treatment of type 2 diabetes: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

As more studies report on patient preferences, techniques are needed to identify, assess and, eventually, synthesize results from a diverse set of methodologies. Data on patient preferences are valuable to decision makers in a variety of ways. Preferences for outcomes can be used to inform decision and cost-effectiveness models, while preferences for treatments can inform patient-centered outcomes research (PCOR) and patient-centered care.

OBJECTIVES

This project sought to identify and assess the literature reporting on the treatment preferences of adult patients with type 2 diabetes. In addition to cataloging the preference elicitation methods used, we developed and assessed a novel quality assessment checklist for preference-based studies.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, and EconLit databases were searched to identify studies examining patient preferences for medications for type 2 diabetes studies published since inception of each database.

STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA, PARTICIPANTS, AND INTERVENTIONS

The review protocol specified inclusion of studies reporting diabetes-treatment preferences among adults with type 2 diabetes, using a range of preference measurement methods. Studies were excluded if participants were not patients with type 2 diabetes and if treatments were not pharmacological therapies targeting glycemic control, or if no primary preference information was collected. Two investigators independently reviewed titles, abstracts, and articles sequentially to select studies for data abstraction based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Disagreements were resolved by consensus.

STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS

Data on study country, year, number of respondents, preference elicitation method, number of attributes, subgroup analyses, and funding source were abstracted into standardized tables. A novel checklist (PREFS) was used to assess the data quality and validity across different types of preference studies by assessing the following: purpose of the study; respondent sampling; explanation of preference assessment methods; findings reported for total sample; and significance testing. Each item was scored, and an aggregate score was then calculated (ranging from 0 to 5).

RESULTS

Of the 2,100 unique citations, 61 met the inclusion criteria. The studies used conjoint analysis (n = 10), time trade-off (n = 6), standard gamble (n = 2), contingent valuation (n = 1), other stated preference methods (n = 39), and revealed preferences (n = 5). Sample sizes ranged from 27 to 14,033, with an average of 562 respondents, and two-thirds included a subgroup analysis. Most studies were conducted in one country, predominantly the USA (n = 27), UK (n = 14), Canada (n = 10), and Germany (n = 7), while 14 were conducted in multiple (2-18) countries across two or more countries. There was an increase in the annual rate of studies published over time from the time of the first publication in 1985 (p = < 0.01). Most (n = 52) studies were funded by pharmaceutical or device companies, with government, academic, association, and hospital sources also funding studies. One study met all five of the PREFS criteria and 12 met four; yet four studies met none of the criteria. The average was 27.

LIMITATIONS

Currently, preferences reviews are limited by the mixed quality in the reporting of studies, the publication bias inherent in the literature, a lack of guidelines to conduct various methods, and the difficulty of synthesizing results from different studies. Our study is also limited by its focus on English language articles.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS OF KEY FINDINGS

This study provides the first systematic evaluation of the methods used in the broad existing body of research into patient preferences for type 2 diabetes medications and can serve as a primary source of information for decision makers. Future work is necessary to assess the utility of the results of reviews of preference information and to develop best-practice guidelines for the reporting of, and methods of conducting, preference studies and systematic reviews of such studies.

REGISTRATION

This systematic review was registered with PROSPERO (registration number CRD42012002285).

The NICE ADHD health technology assessment: a review and critique

BACKGROUND

Health technology assessments (HTAs) by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) enjoy high levels of international attention. The present analysis addresses NICE's appraisal of methylphenidate, atomoxetine and dexamphetamine for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in children and adolescents, published in March 2006.

METHODS

A qualitative study of NICE Technology Appraisal No. 98 was done focusing on the >600-page technology assessment report, which aimed at evaluating ADHD treatment strategies by a clinical effectiveness review and an economic analysis using meta-analytical techniques and a cost-effectiveness model.

RESULTS

The technology assessment was unable to differentiate between the various drugs in terms of efficacy, and its economic model was ultimately driven by cost differences. While the assessment concluded that the economic model "clearly identified an optimal treatment strategy" with first-line dexamphetamine, the NICE appraisal committee subsequently found it impossible to distinguish between the different strategies on grounds of cost-effectiveness. Analyzing the assessment reveals gaps and inconsistencies concerning data selection (ultimately relying on a small number of short-term studies only), data synthesis (pooling of heterogeneous study designs and clinical endpoints), and economic model structure (identifying double-counting of nonresponders as a likely source of bias, alongside further methodological anomalies).

CONCLUSION

Many conclusions of the NICE technology assessment rest on shaky grounds. There remains a need for a new, state-of-the-art systematic review of ADHD treatment strategies including economic evaluation, which ideally should address outcomes beyond children's health-related quality of life, such as long-term sequelae of the disorder and caregiver burden.

Costs and consequences of enhanced primary care for depression: systematic review of randomised economic evaluations

BACKGROUND

A number of enhancement strategies have been proposed to improve the quality and outcome of care for depression in primary care settings. Decision-makers are likely to need to know whether these interventions are cost-effective in routine primary care settings.

METHOD

We conducted a systematic review of all full economic evaluations (cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses) accompanying randomised controlled trials of enhanced primary care for depression. Costs were standardised to UK pounds/US dollars and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were visually summarised using a permutation matrix.

RESULTS

We identified 11 full economic evaluations (4757 patients). A near-uniform finding was that the interventions based upon collaborative care/case management resulted in improved outcomes but were also associated with greater costs. When considering primary care depression treatment costs alone, ICER estimates ranged from 7 ($13, no confidence interval given) to 13 UK pounds ($24,95% CI -105 to 148) per additional depression-free day. Educational interventions alone were associated with increased cost and no clinical benefit.

CONCLUSIONS

Improved outcomes through depression management programmes using a collaborative care/case management approach can be expected, but are associated with increased cost and will require investment.

Screening and case finding instruments for depression

BACKGROUND

Screening or case finding instruments have been advocated as a simple, quick and inexpensive method to improve detection and management of depression in non-specialist settings, such as primary care and the general hospital. However, screening/case finding is just one of a number of strategies that have been advocated to improve the quality of care for depression. The adoption of this seemingly simple and effective strategy should be underpinned by evidence of clinical and cost effectiveness.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the clinical and cost effectiveness of screening and case finding instruments in: (1) improving the recognition of depression; (2) improving the management of depression, and (3) improving the outcome of depression.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The researchers undertook electronic searches of The Cochrane Library (Issue 4, 2004); The Cochrane Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Group's Register [2004); EMBASE (1980-2004); MEDLINE (1966-2004); CINAHL (to 2004) and PsycLIT (1974-2004). References of all identified studies were searched for further trials, and the researchers contacted authors of trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials of the administration of case finding/screening instruments for depression and the feedback of the results of these instruments to clinicians, compared with no clinician feedback. Trials had to be conducted in non-mental health settings, such as primary care or the general hospital. Studies that used screening strategies in addition to enhanced care, such as case management and structured follow up, were specifically excluded.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Citations and, where possible, abstracts were independently inspected by researchers, papers ordered, re-inspected and quality assessed. Data were also independently extracted. Data relating to: (1) the recognition of depression; (2) the management of depression and (3) the outcome of depression over time were sought. For dichotomous data the Relative Risk (RR), 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated on an intention-to-treat basis. For continuous data, weighted and standardised mean difference were calculated. A series of a priori sensitivity analyses relating to the method of administration of questionnaires and population under study were used to examine plausible causes of heterogeneity.

MAIN RESULTS

Twelve studies (including 5693 patients) met our inclusion criteria. Synthesis of these data gave the following results:(1) the recognition of depression: according to case note entries of depression, screening/case finding instruments had borderline impact on the overall recognition of depression by clinicians (relative risk 1.38; 95% confidence interval 1.04 to 1.83). However, substantial heterogeneity was found for this outcome. Screening and feedback, irrespective of baseline score of depression has no impact on the detection of depression (relative risk 1.00; 95% confidence interval 0.89 to 1.13). In contrast, three small positive studies using a two stage selective procedure, whereby patients were screened and only patients scoring above a certain threshold were entered into the trial, did suggest that this approach might be effective (relative risk 2.66; 95% confidence interval 1.78 to 3.96). Separate pooling according to this variable reduced the overall level of heterogeneity. Publication bias was also found for this outcome.(2) the management of depression: according to case note entries for active interventions and prescription data, a selected subsample of all studies reported this outcome and found that there was there was an overall trend to showing a borderline higher intervention rate amongst those who received feedback of screening/case finding instruments (relative risk 1.35; 95% confidence interval 0.98 to 1.85), although substantial heterogeneity between studies existed for this outcome. This result was dependant upon the presence of one highly positive study.(3) the outcome of depression: few studies reported the impact of case finding/screening instruments on the actual outcome of depression, and no statistical pooling was possible. However, three out of four studies reported no clinical effect (p<0.05) at either six months or twelve months. No studies examined the cost effectiveness of screening/case finding as a strategy.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is substantial evidence that routinely administered case finding/screening questionnaires for depression have minimal impact on the detection, management or outcome of depression by clinicians. Practice guidelines and recommendations to adopt this strategy, in isolation, in order to improve the quality of healthcare should be resisted. The longer term benefits and costs of routine screening/case finding for depression have not been evaluated. A two stage procedure for screening/case finding may be effective, but this needs to be evaluated in a large scale cluster randomised trial, with a prospective economic evaluation.

Amphetamines for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

It is estimated that between 10% and 65% of people with schizophrenia use illicit drugs such as amphetamines. This group have an increased rate of hospitalisation, homelessness, unemployment and suicide compared with those with schizophrenia who do not abuse drugs.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effects of amphetamines for people with schizophrenia in terms of clinically meaningful outcomes, cognitive functioning and physiological tests.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Register (February 2002).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials investigating the effects of amphetamines on people with schizophrenia, compared with a placebo intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Working independently, we selected and critically appraised studies, extracted data and analysed on an intention-to-treat basis. Where possible and appropriate we calculated risk ratios (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI), with the number needed to treat (NNT). For continuous data we calculated Weighted Mean Differences (WMD).

MAIN RESULTS

We included four short studies with a total of 83 participants. Data were few and poorly reported. The results indicated a reduction of negative symptoms for people allocated to amphetamines (n = 16, 1 RCT, WMD -3 CI -5.02 to -0.98). No such effect was found for positive symptom change (n = 16, 1 RCT, WMD 0 CI -4.46 to 4.46). Compared with placebo, amphetamines significantly increased metabolism in the left and right cerebellum (n = 23, 1 RCT, WMD 0.12 CI 0.06 to 0.18; n = 23 1 RCT, WMD 0.12 CI 0.06 to 0.18) and left striatum (n = 23, 1 RCT, WMD 0.14 CI 0.00 to 0.28) and also significantly decreased metabolism in the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (n = 23, 1 RCT, WMD -0.09 CI -0.17 to -0.01).

REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS

Understandably amphetamines are rarely formally evaluated in randomised studies and therefore unpublished work in this area is likely to exist. Addition of more studies may clarify reasons why people with schizophrenia persist in taking these harmful stimulants.

Outcome measures and needs assessment tools for schizophrenia and related disorders

BACKGROUND

There has been a recent trend to encourage routine outcome measurement and needs assessment as an aid to decision making in clinical practice and patient care. Standardised instruments have been developed which measure clinical symptoms of disorders such as schizophrenia, wider health related quality of life and patients' needs. Such measures might usefully be applied to aid the recognition of psychosocial problems and to monitor the course of patients' progress over time in terms of disease severity and associated deficits in health related quality of life. They might also be used to help clinicians to make decisions about treatment and to assess subsequent therapeutic impact. Such an approach is not, however, without cost and the actual benefit of the adoption of routine outcome and needs assessment in the day-to-day care of those with schizophrenia remains unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To establish the value of the routine administration of outcome measures and needs assessment tools and the feedback they provide in improving the management and outcome of patients with schizophrenia and related disorders.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The reviewers undertook electronic searches of the British Nursing Index (1994 to Sept 1999), the Cochrane Library (Issue 2, 2002), the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register (2002), EMBASE (1980-2002), MEDLINE (1966-2002), and PsycLIT (1887-2002), together with hand searches of key journals. References of all identified studies were searched for further trials, and the reviewers contacted authors of trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing the feedback of routine standardised outcome measurement and needs assessment, to routine care for those with schizophrenia.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Reviewers evaluated data independently. Studies which randomised clinicians or clinical teams (rather than individual patients) were considered to be the most robust. However only those which took account of potential clustering effects were considered further. Where possible and appropriate, risk ratios (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. For continuous data Weighted Mean Differences (WMD) were calculated. Data were inspected for heterogeneity.

MAIN RESULTS

No randomised data were found which addressed the specified objectives. One unpublished and one ongoing trial was identified.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

The routine use of outcomes measures and needs assessment tools is, as yet, unsupported by high quality evidence of clinical and cost effectiveness. Clinicians, patients and policy makers alike may wish to see randomised evidence before this strategy is routinely adopted.

How to get the information needed to inform decision-makers - an economic perspective

From an economic viewpoint, the amount of primary research conducted on a topic at any given point in time depends on grantmaker and researcher incentives. The potential addresses of research findings often set these incentives. Following this logic, there is an economic explanation provided for the availability of primary data in effcacy studies. This also explains the lack of data in other important fields of health care. This article evaluates why there are few studies on effectiveness and cost-effectiveness then discusses how research incentives might be changed to overcome this problem. As a result of cost containment efforts in some countries, this process has already been initialized.

What type of information is needed to inform mental health policy?

The most valuable research integrates from thre levels of investigation: clinical efficacy, "real life" effectiveness (including cost-effectiveness) and policy research. Successful applications of systematic reviews have largely been limited to clinical efficacy questions. The contribution of systematic reviews/meta-analyses to effectiveness and economic questions in mental health has been very minor and their contribution to inform policy is negligible. The latter is unlikely to change due to the different type of information that policy makers need.