Dataset Information

Patient Centricity in Patient Preference Studies: The Patient Perspective.

ABSTRACT: Objectives: A factor contributing to the value of patient preference studies is patient centricity. This study aimed to explore how patients want to be involved in the design and conduct of patient preference studies. In addition, we investigated patients' expectations regarding the communication of study results back to patients. Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with patient representatives within three different disease areas: rheumatic diseases, cancer, and neuromuscular disorders. For each disease area, interviews were conducted with interviewees from Belgium, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. Interviews followed a predefined interview guide covering topics relating to timing, level, and requirements for patient involvement in patient preference studies, as well as communication of results. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and analyzed using framework analysis in NVivo 12. Results: A total of 14 interviews were conducted. Some interviewees believed that patients should be involved in all steps of a patient preference study. Patient involvement seemed most valuable during the design phase to support defining research questions and instrument design. During analysis, patients can be involved for optimal interpretation of results. Most interviewees mentioned that patient involvement should be on the level of advice or collaboration, not control. Interviewees expressed requirements for patient involvement relating to the knowledge of the involved patient, time investment, compensation and other incentives. Regarding communication of results, most interviewees wished to receive a brief and lay summary of the results, followed by a detailed explanation of both individual and average results accompanied by visuals. Conclusions: Patient involvement in patient preference studies could increase question comprehension by study participants and ensure correct interpretation of results by researchers. Patients want to be involved as advisors or collaborators, and considering their personal situation as well as establishing agreements on roles, time involvement and compensation early on will result in a most optimal partnership.

SUBMITTER: van Overbeeke E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7100374 | biostudies-literature | 2020

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Patient Centricity in Patient Preference Studies: The Patient Perspective.

van Overbeeke Eline E Vanbinst Inès I Jimenez-Moreno Aura Cecilia AC Huys Isabelle I

Frontiers in medicine 20200320

<b>Objectives:</b> A factor contributing to the value of patient preference studies is patient centricity. This study aimed to explore how patients want to be involved in the design and conduct of patient preference studies. In addition, we investigated patients' expectations regarding the communication of study results back to patients. <b>Methods:</b> Semi-structured interviews were conducted with patient representatives within three different disease areas: rheumatic diseases, cancer, and neu ...[more]

PMID: 32266277

Similar Datasets

Project description:Objectives: To investigate stakeholder perspectives on how patient preference studies (PPS) should be designed and conducted to allow for inclusion of patient preferences in decision-making along the medical product life cycle (MPLC), and how patient preferences can be used in such decision-making. Methods: Two literature reviews and semi-structured interviews (n = 143) with healthcare stakeholders in Europe and the US were conducted; results of these informed the design of focus group guides. Eight focus groups were conducted with European patients, industry representatives and regulators, and with US regulators and European/Canadian health technology assessment (HTA) representatives. Focus groups were analyzed thematically using NVivo. Results: Stakeholder perspectives on how PPS should be designed and conducted were as follows: 1) study design should be informed by the research questions and patient population; 2) preferred treatment attributes and levels, as well as trade-offs among attributes and levels should be investigated; 3) the patient sample and method should match the MPLC phase; 4) different stakeholders should collaborate; and 5) results from PPS should be shared with relevant stakeholders. The value of patient preferences in decision-making was found to increase with the level of patient preference sensitivity of decisions on medical products. Stakeholders mentioned that patient preferences are hardly used in current decision-making. Potential applications for patient preferences across industry, regulatory and HTA processes were identified. Four applications seemed most promising for systematic integration of patient preferences: 1) benefit-risk assessment by industry and regulators at the marketing-authorization phase; 2) assessment of major contribution to patient care by European regulators; 3) cost-effectiveness analysis; and 4) multi criteria decision analysis in HTA. Conclusions: The value of patient preferences for decision-making depends on the level of collaboration across stakeholders; the match between the research question, MPLC phase, sample, and preference method used in PPS; and the sensitivity of the decision regarding a medical product to patient preferences. Promising applications for patient preferences should be further explored with stakeholders to optimize their inclusion in decision-making.

Project description:BackgroundDetermination of comparative effectiveness in a randomized controlled trial requires consideration of an intervention's comparative uptake (or acceptance) among randomized participants and the intervention's comparative efficacy among participants who use their assigned intervention. If acceptance differs across interventions, then simple randomization of participants can result in post-randomization losses that introduce bias and limit statistical power.MethodsWe develop a novel preference-adaptive randomization procedure in which the allocation probabilities are updated based on the inverse of the relative acceptance rates among randomized participants in each arm. In simulation studies, we determine the optimal frequency with which to update the allocation probabilities based on the number of participants randomized. We illustrate the development and application of preference-adaptive randomization using a randomized controlled trial comparing the effectiveness of different financial incentive structures on prolonged smoking cessation.ResultsSimulation studies indicated that preference-adaptive randomization performed best with frequent updating, accommodated differences in acceptance across arms, and performed well even if the initial values for the allocation probabilities were not equal to their true values. Updating the allocation probabilities after randomizing each participant minimized imbalances in the number of accepting participants across arms over time. In the smoking cessation trial, unexpectedly large differences in acceptance among arms required us to limit the allocation of participants to less acceptable interventions. Nonetheless, the procedure achieved equal numbers of accepting participants in the more acceptable arms, and balanced the characteristics of participants across assigned interventions.ConclusionsPreference-adaptive randomization, coupled with analysis methods based on instrumental variables, can enhance the validity and generalizability of comparative effectiveness studies. In particular, preference-adaptive randomization augments statistical power by maintaining balanced sample sizes in efficacy analyses, while retaining the ability of randomization to balance covariates across arms in effectiveness analyses.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01526265; 31 January 2012.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Colorectal cancer (CRC) is prevalent in the developed world. Favourable survival rates highlight the need to better understand CRC survivors' experiences of long-term impacts of treatment, which can in turn inform decision making. This systematic review aimed to identify and synthesise CRC survivors' experiences of long-term impacts on health-related quality of life. METHODS:We searched Medline, Embase and PsychINFO from inception to January 2019. Qualitative studies describing CRC survivors' experiences at least 1-year post-treatment were included. Study eligibility, quality assessment (COREQ guidelines), and data synthesis was performed independently by two reviewers and discussed with the study team. RESULTS:Of 1363 papers retrieved, 20 reporting 15 studies met eligibility. Thematic synthesis produced 12 themes: symptoms, physical, social, psychological and sexual functioning, impact on relationships, informal care needs provided by family/friend, supportive care needs provided by healthcare professional, health care experiences, health behaviour, financial toxicity and occupational experiences. Stoma problems (e.g. leakage, skin irritation) were common in ostomates. Survivors with no/reversed stoma experienced unexpected, long-term altered and unpredictable bowel functioning. Survivors often regulated timing, amount and foods consumed to manage bowel functioning. Less common symptoms included fatigue, impaired sleep and anal pain. Stoma problems and altered bowel functioning impaired survivors' physical, social, sexual and psychological functioning. Cognitive functioning and heredity issues were not reported in any paper. CONCLUSION:CRC survivors experience ongoing symptoms and functioning impairments more than 1-year post-treatment completion. Many survivors find their own ways to manage symptoms rather than seek professional help. Follow-up care for CRC survivors should integrate screening for long-term effects and provide targeted supportive care.

Project description:ImportanceThresholds for initiating statin therapy should be informed by patients' preferences.ObjectiveTo define the preference distribution for statin therapy across the spectrum of cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk after participants were informed about the benefits and harms of statin therapy.Design, setting, and participantsA cross-sectional survey was conducted from May 13 to June 2, 2020. Participants included 304 individuals aged 40 to 75 years drawn from a nonprobability opt-in panel who had not taken a statin or proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitor in the past 3 years and knew the results of their total cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and blood pressure measurements.ExposuresPersonalized 10-year CVD risk with and without statin therapy and potential harms of statins.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was self-reported preference for statin therapy.ResultsThe 304 participants had a mean (SD) age of 54.8 (9.9) years; 152 were women (50.0%), 130 (42.8%) non-White, 50 (16.6%) had a high school degree or less education, and 153 (50.8%) reported never needing help reading health materials. When asked their preference for using statin therapy after reviewing their benefit and risk information, 45% of the participants reported they would definitely or probably choose statin therapy. As the risk increased, the proportion who would choose statin therapy generally increased (from 31.1% for a risk <5% to 82.6% for a risk >50%). The minimum risk threshold had to increase to 20% before 75% of respondents in that risk group would want statin therapy. For participants with a risk greater than 10%, the desire to use statin therapy decreased as participants' health literacy, subjective numeracy, and knowledge scores increased.Conclusions and relevanceIn this study, preferences for statin therapy for primary prevention of CVD appeared to vary across the spectrum of 10-year cardiovascular risk, but they were relatively flat at intermediate levels of risk. This preference distribution suggests a broad risk range for shared decision-making.

Project description:Early detection by screening significantly reduces mortality from colorectal cancer (CRC). However, CRC screening rates have plateaued, with a considerable segment of the population remaining unscreened. Not being up to date with screening was associated with an approximate 3-fold risk for CRC-related mortality. There are different well-established CRC screening modalities, including invasive and non-invasive, which detect both polyps and cancer or cancer alone. Colonoscopy remains the dominant screening modality in the U.S.; however, colonoscopy uptake is low due to the invasiveness, perception of discomfort and embarrassment, logistical challenges, cost, and potential risks. Increasing patient compliance and adherence to screening is critical to improving CRC outcomes. A key to enhancing screening participation is patient acceptance of the testing method. A blood-based screening test presents an opportunity to overcome some challenging barriers. Blood-based tests are non-invasive compared to colonoscopy and can easily be part of a standard medical office appointment for a wellness check or scheduled visits to manage chronic illnesses and be completed at the point of care. This study will examine patient preference to use a blood-based screening test and compliance with CRC screening recommendations after failing to complete the FIT (Fecal Immunochemical Test)/FOBT (Fecal Occult Blood Test) or colonoscopy order in six months. Compliance with CRC screening is particularly poor among medically underserved populations, and most of these vulnerable individuals use federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) to obtain care. Implementing a blood-based screening test at FQHCs has the potential to improve CRC screening uptake and adherence and improve health disparities in medically underserved populations. This study seeks to answer the following four questions: 1) What is the acceptability of a blood-based screening as an alternative for patients who failed to complete a prior order using traditional screening methods? 2) Are patients who failed to comply with traditional screening methods more likely to comply with a blood-based screening test? 3) What is the effect of offering a blood-based screening test for patients who are non-compliance with traditional screening methods on overall CRC screening rates? 4) What are the facilitators and barriers to implementing the blood-based screening test in clinical settings?

Dataset Information

Patient Centricity in Patient Preference Studies: The Patient Perspective.

Publications

Patient Centricity in Patient Preference Studies: The Patient Perspective.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets