Dataset Information

Comparison of preferences of healthcare professionals and MS patients for attributes of disease-modifying drugs: A best-worst scaling.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The choice between disease-modifying drugs (DMDs) for the treatment of multiple sclerosis (MS) becomes more often a shared decision between the patient and the neurologist and MS nurse. This study aimed to assess which DMD attributes are most important for the healthcare professionals in selecting a DMD for a patient. Subsequently, within this perspective, the neurologists' and nurses' perspectives were compared. Lastly, the healthcare professionals' perspective was compared with the patients' perspective to detect any differences that may need attention in the communication about DMDs.

Design

A best-worst scaling (BWS) was conducted among 27 neurologists and 33 MS nurses treating patients with MS to determine the importance of 27 DMD attributes. These attributes were identified through three focus groups with MS patients in a previous study (N=19). Relative importance scores (RISs) were estimated for each attribute. Multivariable linear regression analyses were used to compare the different perspectives.

Results

According to the neurologists and nurses, safety of the DMD was the most important DMD attribute in the treatment decision, closely followed by effect on disability progression, quality of life and relapse rate. Patients with MS agreed with the importance of the last three attributes, but valued safety significantly lower (b=-2.59, P<.001).

Conclusions

This study suggests that, overall, neurologists and nurses regard the same DMD attributes as important as MS patients with the notable exception of safety. This study provides valuable information for the development of interventions to support shared decision making and highlights which attributes of DMDs may need additional attention.

SUBMITTER: Kremer IEH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5750752 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparison of preferences of healthcare professionals and MS patients for attributes of disease-modifying drugs: A best-worst scaling.

Kremer Ingrid E H IEH Evers Silvia M A A SMAA Jongen Peter J PJ Hiligsmann Mickaël M

Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy 20170721 1

<h4>Background</h4>The choice between disease-modifying drugs (DMDs) for the treatment of multiple sclerosis (MS) becomes more often a shared decision between the patient and the neurologist and MS nurse. This study aimed to assess which DMD attributes are most important for the healthcare professionals in selecting a DMD for a patient. Subsequently, within this perspective, the neurologists' and nurses' perspectives were compared. Lastly, the healthcare professionals' perspective was compared w ...[more]

PMID: 28734004

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesUnderstanding the preferences of patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) for disease-modifying drugs and involving these patients in clinical decision making can improve the concordance between medical decisions and patient values and may, subsequently, improve adherence to disease-modifying drugs. This study aims first to identify which characteristics-or attributes-of disease-modifying drugs influence patients´ decisions about these treatments and second to quantify the attributes' relative importance among patients.MethodsFirst, three focus groups of relapsing-remitting MS patients were formed to compile a preliminary list of attributes using a nominal group technique. Based on this qualitative research, a survey with several choice tasks (best-worst scaling) was developed to prioritize attributes, asking a larger patient group to choose the most and least important attributes. The attributes' mean relative importance scores (RIS) were calculated.ResultsNineteen patients reported 34 attributes during the focus groups and 185 patients evaluated the importance of the attributes in the survey. The effect on disease progression received the highest RIS (RIS = 9.64, 95% confidence interval: [9.48-9.81]), followed by quality of life (RIS = 9.21 [9.00-9.42]), relapse rate (RIS = 7.76 [7.39-8.13]), severity of side effects (RIS = 7.63 [7.33-7.94]) and relapse severity (RIS = 7.39 [7.06-7.73]). Subgroup analyses showed heterogeneity in preference of patients. For example, side effect-related attributes were statistically more important for patients who had no experience in using disease-modifying drugs compared to experienced patients (p < .001).ConclusionsThis study shows that, on average, patients valued effectiveness and unwanted effects as most important. Clinicians should be aware of the average preferences but also that attributes of disease-modifying drugs are valued differently by different patients. Person-centred clinical decision making would be needed and requires eliciting individual preferences.

Project description:Epilepsy is a common, serious condition. Fortunately, seizure risk decreases with increasing seizure-free time on antiseizure medications (ASMs). Eventually, patients may consider whether to stop ASMs, which requires weighing treatment benefit versus burden. We developed a questionnaire to quantify patient preferences relevant to ASM decision-making. Respondents rated how concerning they would finding relevant items (e.g., seizure risks, side effects, cost) on a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS, 0-100) and then repeatedly chose the most and least concerning item from subsets (best-worst scaling, BWS). We pretested with neurologists, then recruited adults with epilepsy who were seizure-free at least one year. Primary outcomes were recruitment rate, and qualitative and Likert-based feedback. Secondary outcomes included VAS ratings and best-minus-worst scores. Thirty-one of 60 (52%) contacted patients completed the study. Most patients felt VAS questions were clear (28; 90%), easy to use (27; 87%), and assessed preferences well (25; 83%). Corresponding results for BWS questions were 27 (87%), 29 (97%), and 23 (77%). Physicians suggested adding a 'warmup' question showing a completed example and simplifying terminology. Patients suggested ways to clarify instructions. Cost, inconvenience of taking medication, and laboratory monitoring were the least concerning items. Cognitive side effects and a 50% seizure risk in the next year were the most concerning items. Twelve (39%) of patients made at least one 'inconsistent choice' for example ranking a higher seizure risk as lower concern compared with a lower seizure risk, though 'inconsistent choices' represented only 3% of all question blocks. Our recruitment rate was favorable, most patients agreed the survey was clear, and we describe areas for improvement. 'Inconsistent' responses may lead us to collapse seizure probability items into a single 'seizure' category. Evidence regarding how patients weigh benefits and harms may inform care and guideline development.

Project description:Food safety is a global public health issue, which often arises from asymmetric information between consumers and suppliers. With the development of information technology in human life, building a food traceability information sharing platform is viewed as one of the best ways to overcome the trust crisis and resolve the problem of information asymmetry in China. However, among the myriad information available from the food supply chain, there is a lack of knowledge on consumer preference. Based on the best-worst scaling approach, this paper investigated consumer preferences for vegetable, pork, and dairy product traceability information. Specifically, this paper measured the relative importance that consumers place on the traceable information. The results indicate that consumers have varying priorities for information in different cases. "Pesticide/veterinary use," "picking/slaughtering date," and "fertilizer/feed use" are the most preferred traceable information for Chinese consumers in the case of vegetables, while "picking/slaughtering date" and "history of illness and taking protective measures" are the most preferred information in the case of pork. In the case of dairy products, consumers prefer "processing information," "environmental information of the origin," and "traceable tag certification information" most. The results of this study call for the direct involvement of the Chinese government in the food safety information sharing system as following. First, given consumers' diverse preferences, different types of traceable information should be recorded into the information sharing platform depending on food types. Second, the government could promote the step-by-step construction of such a platform based on the priority of consumers' preferences. Third, new technology should be applied to guarantee the reliability of traceable information. Finally, local preferences in terms of the way consumers receive and understand information should be taken into consideration.

Project description:PurposeTo quantify patients' preferences for glaucoma outcomes and use this information to prioritize outcomes that are important to patients.DesignA cross-sectional study using best-worst scaling object case (BWS).ParticipantsTwo hundred seventy-four participants newly diagnosed with ocular hypertension or mild to moderate open angle glaucoma from three private practices and one academic medical center in the United States.MethodsWe designed a preference-elicitation survey based on findings from 25 semi-structured, qualitative interviews with patients with glaucoma (reported elsewhere). The survey asked participants to rate the importance of 13 glaucoma outcomes on a Likert scale as a warm-up exercise followed by completion of 13 BWS tasks. For each task, we presented participants a subset of four outcomes from the possible thirteen, and participants chose the most important and least important outcome. Outcomes included in the survey pertain to maintaining ability to perform vision-dependent activities of daily living (e.g., driving), maintaining visual function and perception (e.g., depth perception), minimizing need to take glaucoma drops, not experiencing ocular surface symptoms (e.g., red eyes, teary eyes), and having adequate control of intraocular pressure (IOP). We administered the survey online and analyzed response patterns using conditional logistic regression to determine the relative importance of different outcomes.Main outcomeOrdinal ranking of glaucoma outcomes based on preference weights.ResultsBetween September 1, 2017 and February 28, 2018, we invited 1035 patients to complete our survey, among whom 274 (26%) responded. Most participants were older than 65 years of age (146/274, 53%) and currently on IOP-lowering drops (179/274, 65%). Participants identified that outcomes with the largest relative importance weight were having "adequate IOP control" and ability to "drive a car during the day," and the outcomes with the smallest relative importance weights were "maintaining appearance of the eye" and "reducing the number of IOP-lowering drops".ConclusionsDetermining the relative importance of glaucoma outcomes to patients can help researchers design studies that may better inform clinical and regulatory decision-making. Although IOP is an outcome that researchers often measure in glaucoma clinical trials, patients also prioritized outcomes related to the ability to perform vision-dependent activities such as driving.

Dataset Information

Comparison of preferences of healthcare professionals and MS patients for attributes of disease-modifying drugs: A best-worst scaling.

Background

Design

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Comparison of preferences of healthcare professionals and MS patients for attributes of disease-modifying drugs: A best-worst scaling.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets