Dataset Information

Patient Preferences in the Medical Product Life Cycle: What do Stakeholders Think? Semi-Structured Qualitative Interviews in Europe and the USA.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Patient preferences (PP), which are investigated in PP studies using qualitative or quantitative methods, are a growing area of interest to the following stakeholders involved in the medical product lifecycle: academics, health technology assessment bodies, payers, industry, patients, physicians, and regulators. However, the use of PP in decisions along the medical product lifecycle remains limited. As the adoption of PP heavily relies on these stakeholders, knowledge of their perceptions of PP is critical.

Objective

This study aimed to characterize stakeholders' attitudes, needs, and concerns with respect to PP in decision making along the medical product lifecycle.

Methods

Semi-structured interviews (n?=?143) were conducted with academics (n?=?24), health technology assessment/payer representatives (n?=?24), industry representatives (n?=?24), patients, caregivers and patient representatives (n?=?24), physicians (n?=?24), and regulators (n?=?23) from seven European countries and the USA. Interviews were conducted between April and August 2017. The framework method was used to organize the data and identify themes and key findings in each interviewed stakeholder group.

Results

Interviewees reported being unfamiliar (43%), moderately familiar (42%), or very familiar (15%) with preference methods and studies. Interviewees across stakeholder groups generally supported the idea of using PP in the medical product lifecycle but expressed mixed opinions about the feasibility and impact of using PP in decision making. Interviewees from all stakeholder groups stressed the importance of increasing stakeholders' understanding of the concept of PP and preference methods and ensuring patients' understanding of the questions asked in PP studies. Key concerns and needs in each interviewed stakeholder group were as follows: (1) academics: investigating the validity, reliability, reproducibility, and generalizability of preference methods; (2) health technology assessment/payer representatives: developing quality criteria for evaluating PP studies and gaining insights into how to weigh them in reimbursement/payer decision making; (3) industry representatives: obtaining guidance on PP studies and recognition on the importance of PP from decision makers; (4) patients, caregivers, and patient representatives: providing an incentive and adequate information towards patients when participating in PP studies; (5) physicians: avoiding bias as a result of commercial agendas in PP studies and clarifying how to deal with subjective and emotional elements when measuring PP; and (6) regulators: avoiding the misuse of PP study results to overrule the traditional efficacy and safety criteria used for marketing authorization and obtaining robust PP study results.

Conclusions

Despite the interest all interviewed stakeholder groups reported in PP, the effective use of PP in decision making across the medical product lifecycle is currently hampered by a lack of standardization and consensus on how to both measure and use PP.

SUBMITTER: Janssens R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6697755 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Patient Preferences in the Medical Product Life Cycle: What do Stakeholders Think? Semi-Structured Qualitative Interviews in Europe and the USA.

Janssens Rosanne R Russo Selena S van Overbeeke Eline E Whichello Chiara C Harding Sarah S Kübler Jürgen J Juhaeri Juhaeri J Bywall Karin Schölin KS Comanescu Alina A Hueber Axel A Englbrecht Matthias M Nikolenko Nikoletta N Pravettoni Gabriella G Simoens Steven S Stevens Hilde H Hermann Richard R Levitan Bennett B Cleemput Irina I de Bekker-Grob Esther E Veldwijk Jorien J Huys Isabelle I

The patient 20191001 5

<h4>Background</h4>Patient preferences (PP), which are investigated in PP studies using qualitative or quantitative methods, are a growing area of interest to the following stakeholders involved in the medical product lifecycle: academics, health technology assessment bodies, payers, industry, patients, physicians, and regulators. However, the use of PP in decisions along the medical product lifecycle remains limited. As the adoption of PP heavily relies on these stakeholders, knowledge of their ...[more]

PMID: 31222436

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundDifferent diagnostic interviews are used as reference standards for major depression classification in research. Semi-structured interviews involve clinical judgement, whereas fully structured interviews are completely scripted. The Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI), a brief fully structured interview, is also sometimes used. It is not known whether interview method is associated with probability of major depression classification.AimsTo evaluate the association between interview method and odds of major depression classification, controlling for depressive symptom scores and participant characteristics.MethodData collected for an individual participant data meta-analysis of Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) diagnostic accuracy were analysed and binomial generalised linear mixed models were fit.ResultsA total of 17 158 participants (2287 with major depression) from 57 primary studies were analysed. Among fully structured interviews, odds of major depression were higher for the MINI compared with the Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI) (odds ratio (OR) = 2.10; 95% CI = 1.15-3.87). Compared with semi-structured interviews, fully structured interviews (MINI excluded) were non-significantly more likely to classify participants with low-level depressive symptoms (PHQ-9 scores ≤6) as having major depression (OR = 3.13; 95% CI = 0.98-10.00), similarly likely for moderate-level symptoms (PHQ-9 scores 7-15) (OR = 0.96; 95% CI = 0.56-1.66) and significantly less likely for high-level symptoms (PHQ-9 scores ≥16) (OR = 0.50; 95% CI = 0.26-0.97).ConclusionsThe MINI may identify more people as depressed than the CIDI, and semi-structured and fully structured interviews may not be interchangeable methods, but these results should be replicated.Declaration of interestDrs Jetté and Patten declare that they received a grant, outside the submitted work, from the Hotchkiss Brain Institute, which was jointly funded by the Institute and Pfizer. Pfizer was the original sponsor of the development of the PHQ-9, which is now in the public domain. Dr Chan is a steering committee member or consultant of Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Lilly, MSD and Pfizer. She has received sponsorships and honorarium for giving lectures and providing consultancy and her affiliated institution has received research grants from these companies. Dr Hegerl declares that within the past 3 years, he was an advisory board member for Lundbeck, Servier and Otsuka Pharma; a consultant for Bayer Pharma; and a speaker for Medice Arzneimittel, Novartis, and Roche Pharma, all outside the submitted work. Dr Inagaki declares that he has received grants from Novartis Pharma, lecture fees from Pfizer, Mochida, Shionogi, Sumitomo Dainippon Pharma, Daiichi-Sankyo, Meiji Seika and Takeda, and royalties from Nippon Hyoron Sha, Nanzando, Seiwa Shoten, Igaku-shoin and Technomics, all outside of the submitted work. Dr Yamada reports personal fees from Meiji Seika Pharma Co., Ltd., MSD K.K., Asahi Kasei Pharma Corporation, Seishin Shobo, Seiwa Shoten Co., Ltd., Igaku-shoin Ltd., Chugai Igakusha and Sentan Igakusha, all outside the submitted work. All other authors declare no competing interests. No funder had any role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis and interpretation of the data; preparation, review or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

Project description:Background and objectivesMany donors and recipients report an improved bond posttransplantation; however, unexpected conflicts and tension may also occur. Insights into the lived experiences of the donor-recipient relationship can inform strategies for interventions and support. We aimed to describe donor and recipient expectations and experiences of their relationship before and after living kidney donor transplantation.Design, setting and participantsSemistructured interviews were conducted with 16 donor-recipient pairs before the transplant and 11-14 months post-transplant. Transcripts were analysed thematically.ResultsWe identified seven themes (with respective subthemes): donation as enacting familial responsibility for care; analytical decision making to mitigate regret (avoiding anticipated regret and maintaining control, removing emotional impulsivity); strengthened interpersonal ties (gaining a deeper appreciation among family members, stronger empathy for each other, improving social participation); instability of relational impacts (anger and aggression threatening dynamics, unanticipated stress and emotional lability, triggering familial tension); renegotiating social roles (unexpected continuation of caregiving responsibilities, inability to relinquish the caregiving role, disappointment with unfulfilled renewal of intimacy, dissatisfaction over discrepant energy levels); guilt over unmet expectations and inevitability of the gift relationship (vague and transient indebtedness, expectation of reciprocity, transferring kidney ownership).ConclusionsDonor-recipient relationships may be improved through increased empathy, appreciation, and ability to participate in life together; however, unfulfilled expectations and behavioural and emotional changes in recipients (a side effect related to immunosuppression) remain unresolved consequences of living kidney donor transplantation. Education and counselling to help donors and recipients adjust to potential changes in relationship dynamics may help protect and foster relational stability postdonation.

Dataset Information

Patient Preferences in the Medical Product Life Cycle: What do Stakeholders Think? Semi-Structured Qualitative Interviews in Europe and the USA.

Background

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Patient Preferences in the Medical Product Life Cycle: What do Stakeholders Think? Semi-Structured Qualitative Interviews in Europe and the USA.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets