Dataset Information

Patient Perspectives on Novel Treatments in Haemophilia: A Qualitative Study.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE:New treatments for haemophilia are under development or entering the market, including extended half-life products, designer drugs and gene therapy, thereby increasing treatment options for haemophilia. It is currently unknown how people with haemophilia decide whether to switch to a new treatment. Therefore, the objective of this study was to explore what factors may play a role when Dutch patients and parents of boys with moderate or severe haemophilia make decisions about whether to switch to a different treatment, and how disease and treatment characteristics may affect these decisions. This may aid clinical teams in tailored information provision and shared decision making. METHODS:We conducted interviews among adults with moderately severe or severe haemophilia and parents of young boys with severe haemophilia. We aimed to include participants from a variety of backgrounds in terms of involvement in the haemophilia community, age, treatment centre and treatments. Participants were recruited through the Netherlands Haemophilia Society and a haemophilia treatment centre. Semi-structured interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Thematic content analysis was used to analyse the data. RESULTS:Twelve people with haemophilia and two mothers of boys with haemophilia were included. In general, participants reported to be satisfied with their current treatment. However, they considered ease of use of the medication (fewer injections, easier handling, alternative administration) an added value of new treatments. Participants were aware of the high cost of coagulation factor products and some expressed their concern about the Netherlands Haemophilia Society's long-term willingness to pay for current and novel treatments, especially for increased usage due to high-risk activities. Participants also expressed their concerns about the short- and long-term safety of new treatments and believed the effects of gene therapy were not yet fully understood. Participants expected their treatment team to inform them when a particular new treatment would be suitable for them. CONCLUSIONS:With the number of treatment options set to increase, it is important for healthcare providers to be aware of how patient experiences shape patients' decisions about new therapies.

SUBMITTER: van Balen EC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7075838 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Patient Perspectives on Novel Treatments in Haemophilia: A Qualitative Study.

van Balen Erna C EC Wesselo Marjolein L ML Baker Bridget L BL Westerman Marjan J MJ Coppens Michiel M Smit Cees C Driessens Mariëtte H E MHE Leebeek Frank W G FWG van der Bom Johanna G JG Gouw Samantha C SC

The patient 20200401 2

<h4>Background and objective</h4>New treatments for haemophilia are under development or entering the market, including extended half-life products, designer drugs and gene therapy, thereby increasing treatment options for haemophilia. It is currently unknown how people with haemophilia decide whether to switch to a new treatment. Therefore, the objective of this study was to explore what factors may play a role when Dutch patients and parents of boys with moderate or severe haemophilia make dec ...[more]

PMID: 31691206

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPatients diagnosed with low-risk prostate cancer (PCa) are confronted with a difficult decision regarding whether to undergo definitive treatment or to pursue an active surveillance protocol. This is potentially further complicated by the possibility that patients and physicians may place different value on factors that influence this decision. We conducted a qualitative investigation to better understand patient and physician perceptions of factors influencing treatment decisions for low-risk PCa.MethodsSemi-structured interviews were conducted among 43 racially and ethnically diverse patients diagnosed with low-risk PCa, who were identified through a population-based cancer registry, and 15 physicians who were selected to represent a variety of practice settings in the Greater San Francisco Bay Area.ResultsPatients and physicians both described several key individual (e.g., clinical) and interpersonal (e.g., healthcare communications) factors as important for treatment decision-making. Overall, physicians' perceptions largely mirrored patients' perceptions. First, we observed differences in treatment preferences by age and stage of life. At older ages, there was a preference for less invasive options. However, at younger ages, we found varying opinions among both patients and physicians. Second, patients and physicians both described concerns about side effects including physical functioning and non-physical considerations. Third, we observed differences in expectations and the level of difficulty for clinical conversations based on information needs and resources between patients and physicians. Finally, we discovered that patients and physicians perceived patients' prior knowledge and the support of family/friends as facilitators of clinical conversations.ConclusionsOur study suggests that the gap between patient and physician perceptions on the influence of clinical and communication factors on treatment decision-making is not large. The consensus we observed points to the importance of developing relevant clinical communication roadmaps as well as high quality and accessible patient education materials.

Project description:BackgroundCurrent literature describes the limits and pitfalls of using opioid pharmacotherapy for chronic pain and the importance of identifying alternatives. The objective of this study was to identify the practical issues patients and providers face when accessing alternatives to opioids, and how multiple parties view these issues.MethodsQualitative data were gathered to evaluate the outcomes of acupuncture and chiropractic (A/C) services for chronic musculoskeletal pain (CMP) using structured interview guides among patients with CMP (n = 90) and primary care providers (PCPs) (n = 25) purposively sampled from a managed care health care system as well as from contracted community A/C providers (n = 14). Focus groups and interviews were conducted patients with CMP with varying histories of A/C use. Plan PCPs and contracted A/C providers took part in individual interviews. All participants were asked about their experiences managing chronic pain and experience with and/or attitudes about A/C treatment. Audio recordings were transcribed and thematically coded. A summarized version of the focus group/interview guides is included in the Additional file 1.ResultsWe identified four themes around opioid use: (1) attitudes toward use of opioids to manage chronic pain; (2) the limited alternative options for chronic pain management; (3) the potential of A/C care as a tool to help manage pain; and (4) the complex system around chronic pain management. Despite widespread dissatisfaction with opioid medications for pain management, many practical barriers challenged access to other options. Most of the participants' perceived A/C care as helpful for short term pain relief. We identified that problems with timing, expectations, and plan coverage limited A/C care potential for pain relief treatment.ConclusionsThese results suggest that education about realistic expectations for chronic pain management and therapy options, as well as making A/C care more easily accessible, might lead to more satisfaction for patients and providers, and provide important input to policy makers.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT01345409 , date of registration 28/4/2011.

Project description:Background: Investigational and marketed drugs for the treatment of multiple myeloma (MM) are associated with a range of characteristics and uncertainties regarding long term side-effects and efficacy. This raises questions about what matters most to patients living with this disease. This study aimed to understand which characteristics MM patients find most important, and hence should be included as attributes and levels in a subsequent quantitative preference survey among MM patients. Methods: This qualitative study involved: (i) a scoping literature review, (ii) discussions with MM patients (n = 24) in Belgium, Finland, Romania, and Spain using Nominal Group Technique, (iii) a qualitative thematic analysis including multi-stakeholder discussions. Results: MM patients voiced significant expectations and hopes that treatments would extend their lives and reduce their cancer signs and symptoms. Participants however raised concerns about life-threatening side-effects that could cause permanent organ damage. Bone fractures and debilitating neuropathic effects (such as chronic tingling sensations) were highlighted as major issues reducing patients' independence and mobility. Patients discussed the negative impact of the following symptoms and side-effects on their daily activities: thinking problems, increased susceptibility to infections, reduced energy, pain, emotional problems, and vision problems. MM patients were concerned with uncertainties regarding the durability of positive treatment outcomes, and the cause, severity, and duration of their symptoms and side-effects. Patients feared short-term positive treatment responses complicated by permanent, severe side-effects and symptoms. Conclusions: This study gained an in-depth understanding of the treatment and disease-related characteristics and types of attribute levels (severity, duration) that are most important to MM patients. Results from this study argue in favor of MM drug development and individual treatment decision-making that focuses not only on extending patients' lives but also on addressing those symptoms and side-effects that significantly impact MM patients' quality of life. This study underscores a need for transparent communication toward MM patients about MM treatment outcomes and uncertainties regarding their long-term efficacy and safety. Finally, this study may help drug developers and decision-makers understand which treatment outcomes and uncertainties are most important to MM patients and therefore should be incorporated in MM drug development, evaluation, and clinical practice.

Project description:BackgroundSince the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, virtual care solutions have been rapidly adopted across the country to provide safe, quality care to diverse patient populations. The objective of this qualitative case study was to understand patient and caregiver experiences of virtual care to identify barriers and gather suggestions to address them.MethodsIn this patient-oriented project, we sought to understand gaps in virtual care experienced by patients and caregivers, using virtual focus groups. With the assistance of a patient research liaison, we engaged 2 patient partners as full partners; they participated in study conception, data collection, data analysis and knowledge translation. Recruitment was done through email by disseminating the study poster to 30 community organizations and health units in Ontario and British Columbia. We conducted a constructivist, qualitative study guided by grounded theory methodology. One researcher employed in-vivo coding, followed by axial coding with focus group participants, followed by selective coding with the study team. The study took place from November to December 2020.ResultsWe conducted 6 focus groups with 13 patients and 5 caregivers. The analysis resulted in 6 major themes and 17 minor themes. Key findings showed that barriers related to access to technology and Internet, language and cultural differences were challenges to virtual care. Participants identified special considerations surrounding caregiver and family involvement; privacy, consent and confidentiality; and the patient-physician relationship. Participants suggested that technology and the Internet be universally accessible and that virtual care modalities be integrated (e.g., consolidated patient portal) to improve virtual care.InterpretationThere are multiple patient-identified barriers to accessing virtual care in Canada; patients can provide insights into ways to address these barriers. Future research should include robust patient engagement to explore ways to address these challenges and barriers to ensure that virtual care can be equitable, accessible and safe for all users.Plain language summaryAlthough virtual care has been rapidly adopted and scaled up in health care institutions across the country, few improvements informed by patient and caregiver experiences have been made. Driven by concerns expressed by patient partners, our study team undertook a patient-partnered qualitative study to understand the barriers of virtual care from the perspectives and experiences of patients and caregivers. Our study team created the interview guide drawing from our previous patient-oriented qualitative studies and designed an orientation package to provide resources related to the focus groups and to introduce participants to the study team. Drawing from local health teams, clinics and patient advisory groups, the study team recruited 13 patients and 5 caregivers to participate in 6 focus group interviews. An analysis based on grounded theory was undertaken, with participation from both the study team and participants. Lack of access to technology or Internet and language barriers were determined to be the primary challenges in virtual care. Special considerations to caregiver and family involvement, privacy and confidentiality, as well as the patient-physician relationship were considered priorities to improving access to virtual care. Participants offered recommendations and potential solutions to address barriers and challenges in virtual care, which can serve to encourage large-scale policy and programmatic changes in patient-centred ways.

Project description:BackgroundDigital interventions, such as websites and smartphone apps, can be effective in treating drug use disorders (DUDs). However, their implementation in primary care is hindered, in part, by a lack of knowledge on how patients might like these treatments delivered to them.ObjectiveThis study aims to increase the understanding of how patients with DUDs prefer to receive app-based treatments to inform the implementation of these treatments in primary care.MethodsThe methods of user-centered design were combined with qualitative research methods to inform the design of workflows for offering app-based treatments in primary care. Adult patients (n=14) with past-year cannabis, stimulant, or opioid use disorder from 5 primary care clinics of Kaiser Permanente Washington in the Seattle area participated in this study. Semistructured interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using qualitative template analysis. The coding scheme included deductive codes based on interview topics, which primarily focused on workflow design. Inductive codes emerged from the data.ResultsParticipants wanted to learn about apps during visits where drug use was discussed and felt that app-related conversations should be incorporated into the existing care whenever possible, as opposed to creating new health care visits to facilitate the use of the app. Nearly all participants preferred receiving clinician support for using apps over using them without support. They desired a trusting, supportive relationship with a clinician who could guide them as they used the app. Participants wanted follow-up support via phone calls or secure messaging because these modes of communication were perceived as a convenient and low burden (eg, no copays or appointment travel).ConclusionsA user-centered implementation of treatment apps for DUDs in primary care will require health systems to design workflows that account for patients' needs for structure, support in and outside of visits, and desire for convenience.

Dataset Information

Patient Perspectives on Novel Treatments in Haemophilia: A Qualitative Study.

Publications

Patient Perspectives on Novel Treatments in Haemophilia: A Qualitative Study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets