Things are Looking up Since We Started Listening to Patients

Bridges, John F.P.; Kinter, Elizabeth; Kidane, Lillian; Heinzen, Rebekah R.; McCormick, Colleen M.

doi:10.2165/1312067-200801040-00009

Cited by 116 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Experts may make fewer errors in decision making if their processing of risk information improves as expertise develops [42]. Despite the increasing use of DCE in health applications to elicit preferences [15,43,44], this approach has several potential limitations. One inherent limitation is that the physicians evaluated hypothetical vaccine profiles that do not have the same significance as recommendations involving actual vaccines.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pediatricians’ Preferences for Infant Meningococcal Vaccination

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pediatricians’ Preferences for Infant Meningococcal Vaccination

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…First, while choice-format conjoint analysis methods are increasingly used to support post-marketing regulatory decisions, identify optimal treatment guidelines, and promote patient-centered medicine,[14,40,41] they have limitations. The most important limitation is that participants evaluate hypothetical treatments.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Patients’ Willingness to Accept the Risks and Benefits of New Treatments for Chronic Hepatitis C Virus Infection

Kauf

Mohamed

Hauber

et al. 2012

Patient-Patient-Centered-Outcome-Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundSome patients with chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection forego treatment due to concerns about treatment efficacy, treatment duration, and side effects.ObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to quantify patient preferences among possible outcomes associated with new, direct-acting antiviral agents (DAAs) for the treatment of HCV infection and determine which treatment features are most important to patients in making treatment decisions.MethodsAdult participants with a self-reported physician diagnosis of HCV infection in five countries completed a web-enabled, choice-format conjoint analysis survey. The survey presented participants with 20 treatment-choice questions. Each treatment-choice question included a pair of hypothetical treatment profiles with varying levels of six attributes: treatment duration; chance of getting rid of the virus completely (i.e. likelihood of a sustained virologic response [SVR]); weeks on an additional, third medicine (i.e. a DAA); risk of a severe rash; risk of severe anemia; and number of times a day the third medicine is taken. Treatment-choice questions were based on a predetermined experimental design with known statistical properties. Random-parameters logit was used to estimate preference weights for all attribute levels and the mean relative importance of each attribute.Results284 participants completed the survey. Likelihood of an SVR was the most important outcome to participants, followed by severe anemia risk, severe rash risk, therapy type (a combination of total weeks of treatment and weeks on the third medicine), and dosing of the third medicine. Controlling for other factors, preferences were similar across all therapy types examined.ConclusionPatients with HCV infection indicate a willingness to accept an increased risk of side effects for sufficient improvement in the likelihood of treatment response.Electronic Supplementary MaterialSupplementary material is available for this article at 10.1007/BF03262498 and is accessible for authorized users.

show abstract

“…We applied a 3^6 main effects orthogonal design, identified from the SAS database of orthogonal arrays [41]. Orthogonal designs focus on statistical efficiency and are commonly used and accessible methods [42,43]. The minimum number of treatment profiles necessary to ensure no correlations between the attributes was 18 [44].…”

Section: Experimental Designmentioning

confidence: 99%