Methods for measuring patient preferences: an update and future directions

Unlocking Patient Voices: Advancing Physical Therapist Practice With Discrete Choice Experiments

As health care moves away from volume-based to value-based delivery, the role of the patient in determining value in health care is now paramount. Thus, health care should be aligned with what matters most to patients. Ascertaining patient preferences is therefore critical if we are to provide patients with care that is meaningful to them. However, preferences are difficult to measure and traditional methods of preference measurement in physical therapy face challenges when attempting to measure such. This perspective makes a case for greater use of the discrete choice experiment (DCE) in physical therapy as a research method to measure patient preferences. The DCE is a research method used to elicit preferences for services or goods. This article addresses the importance of eliciting patient preferences as part of person-centered care in the value-based space, the challenges faced in preference measurement in physical therapy, and how the DCE can alleviate some of those challenges. It also provides examples of the DCE in health care and suggests ways in which it can be effectively used in physical therapist practice to improve the delivery of meaningful rehabilitation services to patients. Implementing greater use of the DCE in physical therapy can improve person-centered physical therapist service delivery and inform policy development that creates cost-effective care which is meaningful to patients. It can further help to highlight the value of physical therapy to population health, and to policy makers as health care moves toward more value-based models.

Research Priorities to Increase Confidence in and Acceptance of Health Preference Research: What Questions Should be Prioritized Now?

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

There has been an increase in the study and use of stated-preference methods to inform medicine development decisions. The objective of this study was to identify prioritized topics and questions relating to health preferences based on the perspective of members of the preference research community.

METHODS

Preference research stakeholders from industry, academia, consultancy, health technology assessment/regulatory, and patient organizations were recruited using professional networks and preference-targeted e-mail listservs and surveyed about their perspectives on 19 topics and questions for future studies that would increase acceptance of preference methods and their results by decision makers. The online survey consisted of an initial importance prioritization task, a best-worst scaling case 1 instrument, and open-ended questions. Rating counts were used for analysis. The best-worst scaling used a balanced incomplete block design.

RESULTS

One hundred and one participants responded to the survey invitation with 66 completing the best-worst scaling. The most important research topics related to the synthesis of preferences across studies, transferability across populations or related diseases, and method topics including comparison of methods and non-discrete choice experiment methods. Prioritization differences were found between respondents whose primary affiliation was academia versus other stakeholders. Academic researchers prioritized methodological/less studied topics; other stakeholders prioritized applied research topics relating to consistency of practice.

CONCLUSIONS

As the field of health preference research grows, there is a need to revisit and communicate previous work on preference selection and study design to ensure that new stakeholders are aware of this work and to update these works where necessary. These findings might encourage discussion and alignment among different stakeholders who might hold different research priorities. Research on the application of previous preference research to new contexts will also help increase the acceptance of health preference information by decision makers.

A Qualitative Study of the Values, Needs, and Preferences of Patients Regarding Stroke Care: The ValueCare Study

Introduction

An in-depth understanding of patient perspectives contributes to high-quality, value-based health care. The aim of this study was to explore the values, needs, and preferences of stroke patients across the continuum of care.

Methods

We performed a qualitative study, as part of the larger ValueCare study, involving 36 patients who have had ischemic stroke within the past 18 months at the time of recruitment. Data were collected between December 2020 and April 2021 via one-to-one telephone interviews. All interviews were audio-taped and transcribed verbatim. The interview data were analysed using a thematic approach.

Results

The analysis resulted in five themes: (1) patients' values about health care, (2) information and education, (3) psychological support, (4) follow-up care, and (5) continuity and coordination of care. Patients valued a compassionate professional who is responsive to their needs. Furthermore, patients indicated a need for tailored health information, psychosocial services, pro-active follow-up care and improved coordination of care.

Discussion and conclusion

Stroke patients emphasised the need for tailored information, psychological support, pro-active follow-up, and improved coordination of care. It is advocated for professionals to use a value-based care approach in order to satisfy the individual needs of patients with regard to information, communication, and follow-up care.

Brazilian breast cancer patient-reported outcomes: What really matters for these women

Introduction

Patient-Reported Outcomes (PRO) are directly reported by the patient without interpretation of the patient's response by a clinician or anyone else and pertains to the patient's health, quality of life, or functional status associated with health care or treatment. It can provide patients’ perspectives regarding treatment benefit and harm beyond survival and are often the outcomes of most importance to patients. This study aims to describe and analyze outcomes reported by Brazilian women diagnosed with breast cancer and rank the most important attributes for these patients.

Methods

Observational descriptive study composed of exploratory interviews followed by online questionnaires applied to a convenience sample of women diagnosed with breast cancer.

Results

Twelve women were interviewed to explore the main outcomes and preferences about their treatments, such as the most common side effects and the most impacted aspects of life after diagnosis and BC treatment. Psychological, emotional, and sexual impacts were frequently described as impacted aspects. Fifty-three women, from all the five Brazilian regions, answered the online questionnaire. Following an order of importance ranking, the following outcomes were chosen, respectively: overall survival, progression-free survival; and quality of life. The treatment effects that were considered less important, among this sample, were pain and adverse events.

Conclusions

Thinking about expanding the therapeutic quality of users, it is essential to take into account the experiences of patients. PRO is a trend in current research to achieve this goal, in order to influence the decisions of HTA agencies about the importance of valuing outcomes that affect patients' lives.

Dynamics of Patient-Based Benefit-Risk Assessment of Medicines in Chronic Diseases: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

A critical gap exits in understanding the dynamics of patient-based benefit-risk assessment (BRA) of medicines in chronic diseases during the disease journey.

PURPOSE

To systematically review and synthesize current evidence on the changes of patients' preferences about the benefits and risks of medicines during their disease journey including the influence of disease duration and severity, and previous treatment experience.

METHODS

A systematic review of studies identified in PubMed and Embase, from inception to November 2020, was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) statement. Articles were eligible if they analyzed adult patient-based BRA of medicines with a chronic disease, based on at least one of the pre-specified dimensions: disease severity, disease duration, or previous treatment experience.

RESULTS

A total of 26,228 articles were identified and 105 were eligible for inclusion. Of these, 85 detected a variation in patient-based BRA of medicines with at least one of the pre-specified criteria. Patients with higher disease severity and more treatment experience have increased risk tolerance. It remains inconclusive whether disease duration directly affects the relative importance of a patient's preference.

CONCLUSION

Factors important for patients' BRA of their medicines during a chronic disease journey vary more with their clinical situation and previous treatment experience than with time since diagnosis. Due to the importance of these factors on patients' perspectives and potential impact on their decision-making and eventually their clinical outcomes, there is a need for more studies to assess the dynamics of patients' BRA in every disease.

Does being exposed to an educational tool influence patient preferences? The influence of an educational tool on patient preferences assessed by a discrete choice experiment

OBJECTIVES

There is an increased interest in patient preferences informing the development and authorisation of medical products. A requirement for robust and meaningful results of such studies is that patients adequately understand the risks and benefits associated with treatments for which their preferences are elicited. This study aims to determine the influence of an educational tool, compared with traditional written information on patient preferences elicited in a discrete choice experiment (DCE).

METHODS

Treatment preferences of Swedish patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) were assessed using a DCE. Patients were recruited via clinics, a research panel, and the Swedish Rheumatism Association. Respondents received training materials either as plain written text or as an online educational tool. The educational tool was designed to enhance understanding of the written text by using graphics, pictograms, icon arrays, spoken text, and click-on functions. Data were analysed using random parameter logit models.

RESULTS

675 patients with RA were included in the analysis. The patients received either a written information (n = 358) or information via an educational tool (n = 317). Respondents receiving the educational tool placed relatively more importance on all included side effects in their decision making, compared to respondents receiving the written text, who placed greater importance on treatment effectiveness and administration methods.

CONCLUSION

Compared to the respondents receiving the written text, the decisions of respondents receiving the educational tool were more influenced by medication side effects. Further research is needed to provide guidance on how and when to use educational tools to inform and elicit patients' preferences.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

The ways in which attributes are presented to patients significantly impacts preferences measured in a DCE.

Do people have differing motivations for participating in a stated-preference study? Results from a latent-class analysis

BACKGROUND

Researchers and policy makers have long suspected that people have differing, and potentially nefarious, motivations for participating in stated-preference studies such as discrete-choice experiments (DCE). While anecdotes and theories exist on why people participate in surveys, there is a paucity of evidence exploring variation in preferences for participating in stated-preference studies.

METHODS

We used a DCE to estimate preferences for participating in preference research among an online survey panel sample. Preferences for the characteristics of a study to be conducted at a local hospital were assessed across five attributes (validity, relevance, bias, burden, time and payment) and described across three levels using a starring system. A D-efficient experimental design was used to construct three blocks of 12 choice tasks with two profiles each. Respondents were also asked about factors that motivated their choices. Mixed logistic regression was used to analyze the aggregate sample and latent class analysis identified segments of respondents.

RESULTS

629 respondents completed the experiment. In aggregate "study validity" was most important. Latent class results identified two segments based on underlying motivations: a quality-focused segment (76%) who focused most on validity, relevance, and bias and a convenience-focused segment (24%) who focused most on reimbursement and time. Quality-focused respondents spent more time completing the survey (p < 0.001) and were more likely to identify data quality (p < 0.01) and societal well-being (p < 0.01) as motivations to participate.

CONCLUSIONS

This information can be used to better understand variability in motivations to participate in stated-preference surveys and the impact of motivations on response quality.

Patient preferences on rheumatoid arthritis second-line treatment: a discrete choice experiment of Swedish patients

Background

Preference assessments of patients with rheumatoid arthritis can support clinical therapeutic decisions for including biologic and targeted synthetic medicines to use. This study assesses patient preferences for attributes of second-line therapies and heterogeneity within these preferences to estimate the relative importance of treatment characteristics and to calculate the minimum benefit levels patients require to accept higher levels of side effects.

Methods

Between November 2018 to August 2019, patients with rheumatoid arthritis were recruited to a survey containing demographic and disease-related questions as well as a discrete choice experiment to measure their preferences for second-line therapies using biologics or Janus kinases inhibitors. Treatment characteristics included were route of administration, frequency of use, probability of mild short-term side effects, probability of side effects changing appearance, probability of psychological side effects, probability of severe side effects and effectiveness of treatment.

Results

A total of 358 patients were included in the analysis. A latent class analysis revealed three preference patterns: (1) treatment effectiveness as the single most important attribute, (2) route of administration as the most important attribute, closely followed by frequency of use and psychological side effects and (3) severe side effects as the most important attribute followed by psychological side effects. In addition, disease duration and mild side effects influenced the patients’ choices.

Conclusion

Respondents found either effectiveness, route of administration or severe side effects as the most important attribute. Patients noting effectiveness as most important were more willing than other patients to accept higher risks of side effects.

Partially randomized patient preference trial: Comparative evaluation of fibromyalgia between acupuncture and cupping therapy (PRPP-FACT)

BACKGROUND

and purpose The aim of this study was to investigate the feasibility of applying a partially randomized patients' preference (PRPP) trial in the clinical evaluation of acupuncture versus cupping therapy for fibromyalgia.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The final study included 126 participants. Participants without a treatment modality preference were randomly assigned to either the cupping therapy group or the acupuncture group. Patients with strong preferences were assigned to their treatment modality of choice. Ashi points were used for treatment. Outcome measures were both qualitative (patient expectation and satisfaction) and quantitative (drop-out rate, pain intensity, quality of life, depression assessment).

RESULTS

The recruitment of the non-randomized participants was completed 8 months before the randomized participants were recruited. There was no statistical difference related to the grouping method in the adjusted drop-out rate, patient expectation, and satisfaction.

CONCLUSION

The PRPP model is suitable for use in the clinical evaluation of non-pharmaceutical therapies.

Iranian general populations' and health care providers' preferences for benefits and harms of statin therapy for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease

BACKGROUND

The use of statins for primary prevention of cardiovascular diseases is associated with different benefit and harm outcomes. The aime of this study is how important these outcomes are for people and what people's preferences are.

METHODS

We conducted a preference-eliciting survey incorporating a best-worst scaling (BWS) instrument in Iran from June to November 2019. The relative importance of 13 statins-related outcomes was assessed on a sample of 1085 participants, including 913 general population (486 women) and 172 healthcare providers from the population covered by urban and rural primary health care centers. The participants made trade-off decisions and selected the most and least worrisome outcomes concurrently from 13 choice sets; each contains four outcomes generated using the balanced incomplete block design.

RESULTS

According to the mean (SD) BWS scores, which can be (+ 4) in maximum and (- 4) in minimum, in the general population, the most worrisome outcomes were severe stroke (3.37 (0.8)), severe myocardial infarction (2.71(0.7)), and cancer (2.69 (1.33)). While myopathy (- 3. 03 (1.03)), nausea/headache (- 2.69 (0.94)), and treatment discontinuation due to side effects (- 2.24 (1.14)) were the least worrisome outcomes. Preferences were similar between rural and urban areas and among health care providers and the general population with overlapping uncertainty intervals.

CONCLUSION

The rank of health outcomes may be similar in various socio-cultural contexts. The preferences for benefits and harms of statin therapy are essential to assess benefit-harm balance when recommending statins for primary prevention of cardiovascular diseases.