The importance of measuring strength-of-preference scores for health care options in preference-sensitive care

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).

Awareness of general practitioners concerning cancer patients' preferences for place of death: evidence from four European countries

BACKGROUND

General Practitioners (GPs) are at the first level of contact in many European healthcare systems and they supposedly have a role in supporting cancer patients in achieving their desired place of death. A four-country (Belgium, the Netherlands, Italy and Spain) study was carried out exploring current practices.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

EURO SENTI-MELC adopted a retrospective study design and data for this study were collected in 2010 through representative GPs' networks in four countries. In the current study all non-sudden cancer deaths were included with weekly GP registrations.

RESULTS

The main study sample included 930 deceased cancer patients: preference for place of death was known by GPs for only 377. GP awareness on the preferred place of death varied across countries, 27% in Italy, 36% in Spain, 45% in Belgium and 72% in the Netherlands (p<0.01). The general level of preferences met was high, from 68% (Italy) to 92% (Spain).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the importance of being able to die in a preferred location, GPs were often unaware about patient preferences, especially in Italy and Spain. If GPs were informed, the preference was often met in all countries, indicating room for improvement in end-of-life care.