1
|
Vass C, Boeri M, Karim S, Marshall D, Craig B, Ho KA, Mott D, Ngorsuraches S, Badawy SM, Mühlbacher A, Gonzalez JM, Heidenreich S. Accounting for Preference Heterogeneity in Discrete-Choice Experiments: An ISPOR Special Interest Group Report. VALUE IN HEALTH : THE JOURNAL OF THE INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY FOR PHARMACOECONOMICS AND OUTCOMES RESEARCH 2022; 25:685-694. [PMID: 35500943 DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2022.01.012] [Citation(s) in RCA: 22] [Impact Index Per Article: 11.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/23/2021] [Revised: 01/05/2022] [Accepted: 01/16/2022] [Indexed: 06/14/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) are increasingly used to elicit preferences for health and healthcare. Although many applications assume preferences are homogenous, there is a growing portfolio of methods to understand both explained (because of observed factors) and unexplained (latent) heterogeneity. Nevertheless, the selection of analytical methods can be challenging and little guidance is available. This study aimed to determine the state of practice in accounting for preference heterogeneity in the analysis of health-related DCEs, including the views and experiences of health preference researchers and an overview of the tools that are commonly used to elicit preferences. METHODS An online survey was developed and distributed among health preference researchers and nonhealth method experts, and a systematic review of the DCE literature in health was undertaken to explore the analytical methods used and summarize trends. RESULTS Most respondents (n = 59 of 70, 84%) agreed that accounting for preference heterogeneity provides a richer understanding of the data. Nevertheless, there was disagreement on how to account for heterogeneity; most (n = 60, 85%) stated that more guidance was needed. Notably, the majority (n = 41, 58%) raised concern about the increasing complexity of analytical methods. Of the 342 studies included in the review, half (n = 175, 51%) used a mixed logit with continuous distributions for the parameters, and a third (n = 110, 32%) used a latent class model. CONCLUSIONS Although there is agreement about the importance of accounting for preference heterogeneity, there are noticeable disagreements and concerns about best practices, resulting in a clear need for further analytical guidance.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Caroline Vass
- RTI Health Solutions, Manchester, England, UK; Manchester Centre for Health Economics, The University of Manchester, Manchester, England, UK
| | - Marco Boeri
- RTI Health Solutions, Belfast, Northern Ireland, UK; Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, Northern Ireland, UK
| | | | | | - Ben Craig
- University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada
| | | | - David Mott
- Office of Health Economics, London, England, UK
| | | | - Sherif M Badawy
- Department of Pediatrics, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA; Division of Hematology, Oncology and Stem Cell Transplant, Lurie Children's Hospital of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA
| | - Axel Mühlbacher
- Hochschule Neubrandenburg, Neubrandenburg, Germany; Duke Department of Population Health Sciences, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA; Center for Health Policy and Inequalities Research at the Duke Global Health Institute, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
2
|
Chachoua L, Dabbous M, François C, Dussart C, Aballéa S, Toumi M. Use of Patient Preference Information in Benefit-Risk Assessment, Health Technology Assessment, and Pricing and Reimbursement Decisions: A Systematic Literature Review of Attempts and Initiatives. Front Med (Lausanne) 2020; 7:543046. [PMID: 33195294 PMCID: PMC7649266 DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2020.543046] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/15/2020] [Accepted: 09/15/2020] [Indexed: 12/17/2022] Open
Abstract
Objectives: Inclusion of patient preference (PP) data in decision making has been largely discussed in recent years. Healthcare decision makers—regulatory and health technology assessment (HTA)—are more and more conscious of the need for a patient-centered approach to decide on optimal allocation of scarce money, time, and technological resources. This literature review aims to examine the use of and recommendations for the integration of PP in decision making. Methods: A literature search was conducted through PubMed/Medline in May 2019 to identify publications on PP studies used to inform benefit–risk assessments (BRAs) and HTAs and patient-centered projects and guidelines related to the inclusion of PPs in health policy decision making. After title and abstract screening and full-text review, selected publications were analyzed to retrieve data related to the collection, use, and/or submission of PPs informing BRA or HTA as well as attempts and initiatives in recommendations for PPs integration in decision-making processes. Results: Forty-nine articles were included: 24 attempts and pilot project discussions and 25 PP elicitation studies. Quantitative approaches, particularly discrete choice experiments, were the most used (24 quantitative elicitation studies and 1 qualitative study). The objective of assessing PPs was to prioritize outcome-specific information, to value important treatment characteristics, to provide patient-focused benefit–risk trade-offs, and to appraise the patients' willingness to pay for new technologies. Moreover, attempts and pilot projects to integrate PPs in BRAs and HTAs were identified at the European level and across countries, but no clear recommendations have been issued yet. No less than seven public and/or private initiatives have been undertaken by governmental agencies and independent organizations to set guidance targeting improvement of patients' involvement in decision making. Conclusion: Despite the initiatives undertaken, the pace of progress remains slow. The use of PPs remains poorly implemented, and evidence of proper use of these data in decision making is lacking. Guidelines and recommendations formalizing the purpose of collecting PPs, what methodology should be adopted and how, and who should be responsible for generating these data throughout the decision-making processes are needed to improve and empower integration of PPs in BRA and HTA.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lylia Chachoua
- Laboratory EA 3279 - CEReSS, Aix-Marseille University, Life Sciences and Health Department of Clinical Research and Public Health, Marseille, France
| | - Monique Dabbous
- Laboratory EA 3279 - CEReSS, Aix-Marseille University, Life Sciences and Health Department of Clinical Research and Public Health, Marseille, France
| | - Clément François
- Laboratory EA 3279 - CEReSS, Aix-Marseille University, Life Sciences and Health Department of Clinical Research and Public Health, Marseille, France.,Creativ-Ceutical, Paris, France
| | | | - Samuel Aballéa
- Laboratory EA 3279 - CEReSS, Aix-Marseille University, Life Sciences and Health Department of Clinical Research and Public Health, Marseille, France.,Creativ-Ceutical, Paris, France
| | - Mondher Toumi
- Laboratory EA 3279 - CEReSS, Aix-Marseille University, Life Sciences and Health Department of Clinical Research and Public Health, Marseille, France.,Creativ-Ceutical, Paris, France
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Crossnohere NL, Janse S, Janssen E, Bridges JFP. Comparing the Preferences of Patients and the General Public for Treatment Outcomes in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus. PATIENT-PATIENT CENTERED OUTCOMES RESEARCH 2020; 14:89-100. [PMID: 32885395 DOI: 10.1007/s40271-020-00450-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/27/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Healthcare treatments and interventions are traditionally evaluated from the societal perspective, but a more patient-centric perspective has been proposed in recent years. We sought to compare preferences of patients and the general public for treatment outcomes of type 2 diabetes using both best-worst scaling (BWS) and rating approaches. METHODS A survey evaluating the treatment priorities for type 2 diabetes was conducted in the United States. Members of the general public and patients with type 2 diabetes were recruited from a nationally sampled panel. Participants indicated the importance of seven potential treatment outcomes (hypoglycemic events, glycated hemoglobin [A1c], weight loss, mental health, functioning, glycemic stability, and cardiovascular health) using (1) BWS case 1 and (2) a rating task. Preference differences from BWS prioritizations were explored using mixed logistic regression (BWS preference weights were probability re-scaled so that the weightings of the seven items collectively summed to 100). The consistency of scale between samples was explored using heteroskedastic conditional logistic regression of BWS data. Spearman rank correlation was used to compare standardized BWS preference weights and rating scores for each group. Both groups evaluated the BWS and rating activities using debriefing questions. RESULTS The public and patient samples included 314 and 313 respondents, respectively. The public was on average 16 years younger than patients (48 vs 64 years, P < 0.001). In BWS, patients and the public both ranked A1c, glycemic stability, and cardiovascular health within their top three outcomes. Patients valued the outcome A1c most highly and found it twice as important as did the public (41.0 vs 20.2, P < 0.001). The public valued cardiovascular health most highly, and found it to be twice as important than did patients (31.3 vs 17.4, P < 0.001). Patients were more consistent in their preferences than the public (λ = 1.66, P = 0.01). Preferences elicited using BWS and rating approaches were highly correlated for both patients (ρ = 0.96) and the public (ρ = 0.92). Patients were more likely than the public to endorse the BWS as easy to answer (P < 0.001), easy to understand (P < 0.001), consistent with preferences (P < 0.001), and relevant (P < 0.001). Both patients and the public found the rating activity easier to answer and understand, and more consistent with their preferences, than the BWS (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS We provide some of the first evidence demonstrating a difference in patient and public treatment priorities for diabetes. That patients were more consistent in their preferences than the public and found the BWS and Likert rating instruments more relevant suggests that patient priorities may be more appropriate than those of the general public in some medical decision-making contexts.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Norah L Crossnohere
- Department of Biomedical Informatics, The Ohio State University College of Medicine, 1800 Cannon Drive, Columbus, OH, 43210, USA. .,Department of Health, Behavior, and Society, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 624 N. Broadway, Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA.
| | - Sarah Janse
- Department of Biomedical Informatics, The Ohio State University College of Medicine, 1800 Cannon Drive, Columbus, OH, 43210, USA
| | - Ellen Janssen
- Center for Medical Technology Policy, World Trade Center Baltimore, 401 East Pratt Street, Suite 631, Baltimore, MD, 21202, USA
| | - John F P Bridges
- Department of Biomedical Informatics, The Ohio State University College of Medicine, 1800 Cannon Drive, Columbus, OH, 43210, USA.,Department of Health, Behavior, and Society, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 624 N. Broadway, Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Janssens R, Huys I, van Overbeeke E, Whichello C, Harding S, Kübler J, Juhaeri J, Ciaglia A, Simoens S, Stevens H, Smith M, Levitan B, Cleemput I, de Bekker-Grob E, Veldwijk J. Opportunities and challenges for the inclusion of patient preferences in the medical product life cycle: a systematic review. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2019; 19:189. [PMID: 31585538 PMCID: PMC6778383 DOI: 10.1186/s12911-019-0875-z] [Citation(s) in RCA: 32] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/27/2018] [Accepted: 07/23/2019] [Indexed: 12/27/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND The inclusion of patient preferences (PP) in the medical product life cycle is a topic of growing interest to stakeholders such as academics, Health Technology Assessment (HTA) bodies, reimbursement agencies, industry, patients, physicians and regulators. This review aimed to understand the potential roles, reasons for using PP and the expectations, concerns and requirements associated with PP in industry processes, regulatory benefit-risk assessment (BRA) and marketing authorization (MA), and HTA and reimbursement decision-making. METHODS A systematic review of peer-reviewed and grey literature published between January 2011 and March 2018 was performed. Consulted databases were EconLit, Embase, Guidelines International Network, PsycINFO and PubMed. A two-step strategy was used to select literature. Literature was analyzed using NVivo (QSR international). RESULTS From 1015 initially identified documents, 72 were included. Most were written from an academic perspective (61%) and focused on PP in BRA/MA and/or HTA/reimbursement (73%). Using PP to improve understanding of patients' valuations of treatment outcomes, patients' benefit-risk trade-offs and preference heterogeneity were roles identified in all three decision-making contexts. Reasons for using PP relate to the unique insights and position of patients and the positive effect of including PP on the quality of the decision-making process. Concerns shared across decision-making contexts included methodological questions concerning the validity, reliability and cognitive burden of preference methods. In order to use PP, general, operational and quality requirements were identified, including recognition of the importance of PP and ensuring patient understanding in PP studies. CONCLUSIONS Despite the array of opportunities and added value of using PP throughout the different steps of the MPLC identified in this review, their inclusion in decision-making is hampered by methodological challenges and lack of specific guidance on how to tackle these challenges when undertaking PP studies. To support the development of such guidance, more best practice PP studies and PP studies investigating the methodological issues identified in this review are critically needed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Rosanne Janssens
- Department of Pharmaceutical and Pharmacological Sciences, KU Leuven, Herestraat 49, Box 521, 3000 Leuven, Belgium
| | - Isabelle Huys
- Department of Pharmaceutical and Pharmacological Sciences, KU Leuven, Herestraat 49, Box 521, 3000 Leuven, Belgium
| | - Eline van Overbeeke
- Department of Pharmaceutical and Pharmacological Sciences, KU Leuven, Herestraat 49, Box 521, 3000 Leuven, Belgium
| | - Chiara Whichello
- Erasmus School of Health Policy & Management (ESHPM) and Erasmus Choice Modelling Centre (ECMC), Erasmus University Rotterdam, P.O. Box 1738, 3000 DR Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Sarah Harding
- Takeda International, UK Branch, 61 Aldwych, London, WC2B 4AE UK
| | | | - Juhaeri Juhaeri
- Sanofi, 55 Corporate Drive, Bridgewater Township, NJ 08807 USA
| | - Antonio Ciaglia
- International Alliance of Patients’ Organizations, 49-51 East Rd, Hoxton, London, N1 6AH UK
| | - Steven Simoens
- Department of Pharmaceutical and Pharmacological Sciences, KU Leuven, Herestraat 49, Box 521, 3000 Leuven, Belgium
| | - Hilde Stevens
- Institute for Interdisciplinary Innovation in healthcare (I3h), Université libre de Bruxelles (ULB), Route de Lennik 808, 1070 Brussels, Belgium
| | | | - Bennett Levitan
- Global R&D Epidemiology, Janssen Research & Development, 1125 Trenton-Harbourton Road, PO Box 200, Titusville, NJ 08560 USA
| | - Irina Cleemput
- Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre (KCE), Kruidtuinlaan 55, 1000 Brussels, Belgium
| | - Esther de Bekker-Grob
- Erasmus School of Health Policy & Management (ESHPM) and Erasmus Choice Modelling Centre (ECMC), Erasmus University Rotterdam, P.O. Box 1738, 3000 DR Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Jorien Veldwijk
- Erasmus School of Health Policy & Management (ESHPM) and Erasmus Choice Modelling Centre (ECMC), Erasmus University Rotterdam, P.O. Box 1738, 3000 DR Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Soekhai V, de Bekker-Grob EW, Ellis AR, Vass CM. Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: Past, Present and Future. PHARMACOECONOMICS 2019; 37:201-226. [PMID: 30392040 PMCID: PMC6386055 DOI: 10.1007/s40273-018-0734-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 375] [Impact Index Per Article: 75.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 05/03/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) are increasingly advocated as a way to quantify preferences for health. However, increasing support does not necessarily result in increasing quality. Although specific reviews have been conducted in certain contexts, there exists no recent description of the general state of the science of health-related DCEs. The aim of this paper was to update prior reviews (1990-2012), to identify all health-related DCEs and to provide a description of trends, current practice and future challenges. METHODS A systematic literature review was conducted to identify health-related empirical DCEs published between 2013 and 2017. The search strategy and data extraction replicated prior reviews to allow the reporting of trends, although additional extraction fields were incorporated. RESULTS Of the 7877 abstracts generated, 301 studies met the inclusion criteria and underwent data extraction. In general, the total number of DCEs per year continued to increase, with broader areas of application and increased geographic scope. Studies reported using more sophisticated designs (e.g. D-efficient) with associated software (e.g. Ngene). The trend towards using more sophisticated econometric models also continued. However, many studies presented sophisticated methods with insufficient detail. Qualitative research methods continued to be a popular approach for identifying attributes and levels. CONCLUSIONS The use of empirical DCEs in health economics continues to grow. However, inadequate reporting of methodological details inhibits quality assessment. This may reduce decision-makers' confidence in results and their ability to act on the findings. How and when to integrate health-related DCE outcomes into decision-making remains an important area for future research.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Vikas Soekhai
- Section of Health Technology Assessment (HTA) and Erasmus Choice Modelling Centre (ECMC), Erasmus School of Health Policy & Management (ESHPM), Erasmus University Rotterdam (EUR), P.O. Box 1738, Rotterdam, 3000 DR The Netherlands
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, P.O. Box 2040, Rotterdam, 3000 CA The Netherlands
| | - Esther W. de Bekker-Grob
- Section of Health Technology Assessment (HTA) and Erasmus Choice Modelling Centre (ECMC), Erasmus School of Health Policy & Management (ESHPM), Erasmus University Rotterdam (EUR), P.O. Box 1738, Rotterdam, 3000 DR The Netherlands
| | - Alan R. Ellis
- Department of Social Work, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC USA
| | - Caroline M. Vass
- Manchester Centre for Health Economics, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
van Overbeeke E, Whichello C, Janssens R, Veldwijk J, Cleemput I, Simoens S, Juhaeri J, Levitan B, Kübler J, de Bekker-Grob E, Huys I. Factors and situations influencing the value of patient preference studies along the medical product lifecycle: a literature review. Drug Discov Today 2018; 24:57-68. [PMID: 30266656 DOI: 10.1016/j.drudis.2018.09.015] [Citation(s) in RCA: 61] [Impact Index Per Article: 10.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/27/2018] [Revised: 08/28/2018] [Accepted: 09/20/2018] [Indexed: 01/13/2023]
Abstract
Industry, regulators, health technology assessment (HTA) bodies, and payers are exploring the use of patient preferences in their decision-making processes. In general, experience in conducting and assessing patient preference studies is limited. Here, we performed a systematic literature search and review to identify factors and situations influencing the value of patient preference studies, as well as applications throughout the medical product lifecyle. Factors and situations identified in 113 publications related to the organization, design, and conduct of studies, and to communication and use of results. Although current use of patient preferences is limited, we identified possible applications in discovery, clinical development, marketing authorization, HTA, and postmarketing phases.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Eline van Overbeeke
- Clinical Pharmacology and Pharmacotherapy, University of Leuven, Herestraat 49 Box 521, 3000 Leuven, Belgium.
| | - Chiara Whichello
- Erasmus School of Health Policy & Management (ESHPM) and Erasmus Choice Modelling Centre (ECMC), Erasmus University Rotterdam, P.O. Box 1738, 3000 DR Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Rosanne Janssens
- Clinical Pharmacology and Pharmacotherapy, University of Leuven, Herestraat 49 Box 521, 3000 Leuven, Belgium
| | - Jorien Veldwijk
- Erasmus School of Health Policy & Management (ESHPM) and Erasmus Choice Modelling Centre (ECMC), Erasmus University Rotterdam, P.O. Box 1738, 3000 DR Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Irina Cleemput
- Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre (KCE), Kruidtuinlaan 55, 1000 Brussels, Belgium
| | - Steven Simoens
- Clinical Pharmacology and Pharmacotherapy, University of Leuven, Herestraat 49 Box 521, 3000 Leuven, Belgium
| | | | - Bennett Levitan
- Janssen Research & Development, 1125 Trenton-Harbourton Road, P.O. Box 200, Titusville, NJ 08560, USA
| | - Jürgen Kübler
- Quantitative Scientific Consulting, Europabadstr. 8, 35041 Marburg, Germany
| | - Esther de Bekker-Grob
- Erasmus School of Health Policy & Management (ESHPM) and Erasmus Choice Modelling Centre (ECMC), Erasmus University Rotterdam, P.O. Box 1738, 3000 DR Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Isabelle Huys
- Clinical Pharmacology and Pharmacotherapy, University of Leuven, Herestraat 49 Box 521, 3000 Leuven, Belgium
| |
Collapse
|