Treatment Satisfaction Instruments for Different Purposes during a Productʼs Lifecycle

Abstract

This review investigates whether the development and implementation of treatment satisfaction instruments during a product's lifecycle are informed by their purpose. A basic literature review was performed between 2000 and 2010 using electronic databases (PubMed, PsycINFO®, and EMBASE) and the keywords 'satisfaction' and 'questionnaire' and 'medication' or 'drug'. Relevant articles were reviewed to extract the following information: type of study; study objectives; treatment satisfaction instrument used; clinical condition/indication; purpose of instrument; development of instrument; association of satisfaction with other endpoint measures; and main results and conclusions. Of 875 abstracts, 80 articles were further considered. Treatment satisfaction instruments were most commonly used in observational studies and interventional clinical trials. The review indicated similarities regarding the development and validation of satisfaction instruments, such as using patient input to derive the items and exploring classical measurement properties specific to the target population. Although some differences were apparent between instruments intended for use in clinical trials and clinical practice (e.g. the approaches used to enable the interpretation of satisfaction scores), the specificities of the implementation of treatment satisfaction during a product's lifecycle were rarely considered. By 'keeping the end in mind', data from treatment satisfaction instruments can help at three key stages: (i) product access to market: generating evidence as part of an overall value proposition to facilitate product reimbursement at a national level; (ii) market access to product: making the product available at a local level (e.g. local hospital formularies); and (iii) clinical practice: enhancing market penetration and product expansion after launch, and demonstrating value for prescribers. Furthermore, the development, validation, and interpretation of scores from treatment satisfaction instruments should be sensitive to the intended purpose. By considering the stage in the product lifecycle when an instrument is to be used, treatment satisfaction instruments can be developed with the specific research purpose and target audience in mind - whether it be patients, payers, or prescribers. In the future, treatment satisfaction instruments will become increasingly important for informing decisions at the individual level, giving patients a voice towards their overall management and care, and enhancing the relationship between doctor and patient.

An evaluation of activity tolerance, patient-reported outcomes and satisfaction with the effectiveness of pulmonary daoyin on patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

“… 34 The evaluation of effectiveness satisfaction, although inherently subjective, can reflect the patient’s unique perspective and perceptions on the process, efficiency, and outcomes of the medical care and treatment. 35 The ESQ-COPD was developed and examined by our group according to the highest standards and procedures of international scales, and contains 18 items in five domains: capacity for life and work (five items), clinical symptoms (five items), effect of therapy (four items), convenience of therapy (three items), and whole effect domain (one item). 36 The ESQ-COPD proved to be a reliable and structurally valid instrument through evaluation, 37 and has been used to evaluate the effect of traditional Chinese medicine on satisfaction in COPD patients.…”

Perceptions and factors affecting pharmaceutical market access: results from a literature review and survey of stakeholders in different settings

“…The clear driver for successful market access is the generation of a suitably robust evidence base for good decision making, such that healthcare resources are used for the maximum benefit of patients ( 12 ). The overarching market access strategy for a novel therapy therefore requires demonstration of benefit and value in clinical studies and also in routine clinical practice ( 13 ). A common theme in the Kumar et al description of market access is the presence of stakeholders and the need to satisfy their differing needs to initially gain, and then maintain market access ( 1 ).…”