PATIENT PRIORITIES FOR TREATMENT ATTRIBUTES IN ADJUNCTIVE DRUG THERAPY OF SEVERE HYPERCHOLESTEROLEMIA IN GERMANY: AN ANALYTIC HIERARCHY PROCESS

Development of a Quantitative Preference Instrument for Person-Centered Dementia Care-Stage 2: Insights from a Formative Qualitative Study to Design and Pretest a Dementia-Friendly Analytic Hierarchy Process Survey

Person-centered care (PCC) requires knowledge about patient preferences. An analytic hierarchy process (AHP) is one approach to quantify, weigh and rank patient preferences suitable for People living with Dementia (PlwD), due to simple pairwise comparisons of individual criteria from a complex decision problem. The objective of the present study was to design and pretest a dementia-friendly AHP survey. Methods: Two expert panels consisting of n = 4 Dementia Care Managers and n = 4 physicians to ensure content-validity, and "thinking-aloud" interviews with n = 11 PlwD and n = 3 family caregivers to ensure the face validity of the AHP survey. Following a semi-structured interview guide, PlwD were asked to assess appropriateness and comprehensibility. Data, field notes and partial interview transcripts were analyzed with a constant comparative approach, and feedback was incorporated continuously until PlwD had no further comments or struggles with survey completion. Consistency ratios (CRs) were calculated with Microsoft® Excel and ExpertChoice Comparion®. Results: Three main categories with sub-categories emerged: (1) Content: clear task introduction, (sub)criteria description, criteria homogeneity, (sub)criteria appropriateness, retest questions and sociodemography for heterogeneity; (2) Format: survey structure, pairwise comparison sequence, survey length, graphical design (incl. AHP scale), survey procedure explanation, survey assistance and response perspective; and (3) Layout: easy wording, short sentences and visual aids. Individual CRs ranged from 0.08 to 0.859, and the consolidated CR was 0.37 (0.038). Conclusions: Our formative qualitative study provides initial data for the design of a dementia-friendly AHP survey. Consideration of our findings may contribute to face and content validity in future quantitative preference research in dementia.

Elicitation of quantitative, choice-based preferences for Person-Centered Care among People living with Dementia in comparison to physicians' judgements in Germany: study protocol for the mixed-methods PreDemCare-study

BACKGROUND

Person-Centered-Care (PCC) requires knowledge about patient preferences. Among People-living-with-Dementia (PlwD) data on quantitative, choice-based preferences, which would allow to quantify, weigh and rank patient-relevant elements of dementia-care, and identify most/least preferred choices, are limited. The Analytic-Hierarchy-Process (AHP) may be one approach to elicit quantitative, choice-based preferences with PlwD, due to simple pairwise comparisons of individual criteria from a complex decision-problem, e.g. health care decisions. Furthermore, data on congruence of patient preferences with physicians' judgements for PCC are missing. If patient preferences and physicians' judgements differ, provision of PCC becomes unlikely. An understanding of patient preferences compared to physician's judgements will support the implementation of truly PCC, i.e. state of the art dementia-care aligned with patient preferences.

METHODS

This mixed-methods-study will be based on the results from a previous systematic review and conducted in three phases: (I) literature-based key intervention-categories of PCC will be investigated during qualitative interviews with Dementia-Care-Managers (DCMs) and PlwD to identify actually patient-relevant (sub) criteria of PCC; (II) based on findings from phase I, an AHP-survey will be designed and pre-tested for face- and content-validity, and consistency during face-to-face "thinking-aloud"-interviews with PlwD and two expert panels (DCMs and physicians); (III) the developed survey will elicit patient preferences and physicians' judgements for PCC. To assess individual importance weights for (sub) criteria in both groups, the Principal-Eigenvector-Method will be applied. Weights will be aggregated per group by Aggregation-of-Individual-Priorities-mode. Descriptive and interferential statistical analyses will be conducted to assess congruence of importance-weights between groups. Subgroup-analyses shall investigate participant-heterogeneities, sensitivity of AHP-results shall be tested by inclusion/exclusion of inconsistent respondents.

DISCUSSION

Little research is published on quantitative, choice-based preferences in dementia care. We expect that (1) PlwD have preferences and can express these, (2) that the AHP is a suitable technique to elicit quantitative, choice-based preferences among PlwD, and (3) to identify a divergence between patient preferences and physicians' judgements for PCC. With the help of the AHP-technique, which supports systematic decision-making including multiple criteria, it may be possible to involve PlwD in future care decisions (patient participation) and ensure implementation of truly Person-Centered-Dementia-Care.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Approval of the study was granted by the Ethics Committee at the University Medicine Greifswald the 09Apr2021 (Reg.-Nr.: BB 018-21, BB 018-21a, BB 018-21b).

Development of a Quantitative Instrument to Elicit Patient Preferences for Person-Centered Dementia Care Stage 1: A Formative Qualitative Study to Identify Patient Relevant Criteria for Experimental Design of an Analytic Hierarchy Process

Background: Person-centered care (PCC) requires knowledge about patient preferences. This formative qualitative study aimed to identify (sub)criteria of PCC for the design of a quantitative, choice-based instrument to elicit patient preferences for person-centered dementia care. Method: Interviews were conducted with n = 2 dementia care managers, n = 10 People living with Dementia (PlwD), and n = 3 caregivers (CGs), which followed a semi-structured interview guide including a card game with PCC criteria identified from the literature. Criteria cards were shown to explore the PlwD's conception. PlwD were asked to rank the cards to identify patient-relevant criteria of PCC. Audios were verbatim-transcribed and analyzed with qualitative content analysis. Card game results were coded on a 10-point-scale, and sums and means for criteria were calculated. Results: Six criteria with two sub-criteria emerged from the analysis; social relationships (indirect contact, direct contact), cognitive training (passive, active), organization of care (decentralized structures and no shared decision making, centralized structures and shared decision making), assistance with daily activities (professional, family member), characteristics of care professionals (empathy, education and work experience) and physical activities (alone, group). Dementia-sensitive wording and balance between comprehensibility vs. completeness of the (sub)criteria emerged as additional themes. Conclusions: Our formative study provides initial data about patient-relevant criteria of PCC to design a quantitative patient preference instrument. Future research may want to consider the balance between (sub)criteria comprehensibility vs. completeness.

Treatment Preferences in Germany Differ Among Apheresis Patients with Severe Hypercholesterolemia

BACKGROUND

Severe hypercholesterolemia is a major risk factor of death in patients with coronary heart disease. New adjunctive drug therapies (proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 [PCSK9] inhibitors) have gained approval in Europe and the USA.

OBJECTIVE

In this empirical study, we documented preferences regarding adjuvant drug therapy in apheresis-treated patients with severe familial hypercholesterolemia.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic literature search to identify patient-relevant outcomes in patients with severe hypercholesterolemia currently undergoing apheresis. Data were used to generate a semi-structured qualitative interview that enabled seven patient-relevant characteristics with three levels each to be identified. For the discrete choice experiment, an experimental design (7 × 3) was generated using NGene Software that consisted of 96 choices divided into eight blocks. The survey was conducted between November 2015 and April 2016 using computer-assisted personal interviews.

RESULTS

The survey was completed by 348 patients (64.9% male). The random parameter logit estimation showed predominance for the attribute 'reduction of LDL-C (low-density lipoprotein cholesterol) level'. 'Risk of myopathy' and 'frequency of apheresis' dominated next. Within the random parameter logit estimation, all coefficients were significant (P ≤ 0.01). The latent class analysis identified three patient groups. The first group (126 patients) found 'reduction of LDL-C level in blood' to be most important. This group focused solely on this treatment outcome independently of apheresis frequency or additional injections. The second group (106 patients) focused on three attributes: 'frequency of apheresis', 'risk of myopathy', and 'reduction of LDL-C level in blood'. Respondents clearly considered a high frequency of apheresis to have a negative impact. The third group (116 patients) demonstrated the highest preference for apheresis. These patients have adjusted to apheresis for > 10 years.

CONCLUSION

Regarding patient preference, clinical efficacy seems to dominate. Hence, 'reduction of LDC-C in blood' was ranked highest above patient-relevant modes of administration and adverse effects. In the patient groups identified, reduction of apheresis was important for only a subsegment (30%) of patients. Another 30% wanted effective LDL-C reduction by whatever means necessary. Most strikingly, another 30% preferred higher frequencies of apheresis.