Dataset Information

Treatment Preferences of Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: Results from Qualitative Interviews and Focus Groups in the United Kingdom, United States, and Germany.

ABSTRACT:

Background

A wide range of therapeutic regimens, including single-inhaler triple therapies (SITTs), are now available for the maintenance treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Thus, an improved understanding of patient preferences may be valuable to inform physician prescribing decisions. This study was performed to assess the factors considered by patients when making decisions about their COPD treatments using qualitative techniques.

Methods

In the United Kingdom, United States and Germany, individual qualitative interviews (n=10 per country) and focus groups (1 per country; [United Kingdom, n=4; United States, n=6; Germany, n=6 participants]) were conducted. Interviews and focus groups were semi‑structured, lasting approximately 60 minutes, and focused on treatment preferences. Data were analyzed according to emerging themes identified from the interviews; qualitative thematic analysis of the data was performed using specialist software.

Results

In interviews and focus groups, efficacy, ease of use, and lower frequency of use were favored attributes for current treatment, while side effects, medication taste, and more complex administration techniques were key dislikes. In interviews, most participants would consider a switch in medication, mainly for improved efficacy, but also to reduce medication frequency or following physician advice. Overall, efficacy and ease of use were the 2 most important attributes reported in interviews in all 3 countries.

Conclusion

Patients with COPD have preferences for certain attributes of medication, highlighting the multi-faceted nature of treatment effectiveness and the importance of the delivery device.These results were subsequently used to inform the design of a discrete choice experiment.

SUBMITTER: Schroeder M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8047617 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionThe impact of asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) on individuals' lives may be substantial, yet clinical practice often focuses only on symptoms. We aimed to better understand the perspective of asthma or COPD patients and to identify condition-related burden, life impact, priorities, unmet needs, and treatment goals.MethodsIndividuals aged at least 18 years with asthma or COPD were identified by a recruitment panel via clinical referrals, support groups, consumer networks, and a patient database. Interviews were carried out individually (by telephone) or in focus groups (with no more than five participants per group). A semi-structured interview guide was used with prespecified topics, informed by a literature review, that were considered impactful in asthma or COPD (symptoms and daily-life impact, satisfaction with current treatment, important aspects of treatment, adherence, and ideal treatment).ResultsOverall, 72 people participated in focus groups/individual interviews (asthma n = 18/n = 21; COPD n = 15/n = 18). "Shortness of breath" was the most frequently reported symptom; however, participants discussed the life impact of their condition more than symptoms alone. Reported physical impacts included the inability to sleep and socialize, while emotional impacts included "embarrassment, stigma, and/or self-consciousness", "fear and/or panic", and "sadness, anxiety, and/or depression". Coping mechanisms for normal activities included continuing at reduced pace and avoidance. Treatment preferences centered on resolving impacts; improved sleep, "speed of action", and "length of relief" were the most frequently reported ideal treatment factors.ConclusionPatients with asthma or COPD experience substantial quality of life limitations and tend to focus on these in their expressions of concern, rather than symptoms per se. Life impacts of these conditions may have implications beyond those commonly appreciated in routine practice; these considerations will be applied to a future discrete choice experiment survey.FundingGSK funded study (H0-15-15502/204821).

Project description:ObjectiveTo compare the volume and quality of original research in primary care published by researchers from primary care in the United Kingdom against five countries with well established academic primary care.DesignBibliometric analysis.SettingUnited Kingdom, United States, Australia, Canada, Germany, and the Netherlands. Studies reviewed Research publications relevant to comprehensive primary care and authored by researchers from primary care, recorded in Medline and Embase, with publication dates 2001-7 inclusive.Main outcome measuresVolume of published activity of generalist primary care researchers and the quality of the research output by those publishing the most using citation metrics: numbers of cited papers, proportion of cited papers, and mean citation scores.Results82,169 papers published between 2001 and 2007 in the six countries were classified as research on primary care. In a 15% pragmatic random sample of these records, 40% of research on primary care from the United Kingdom and 46% from the Netherlands was authored by researchers employed in a primary care setting or employed in academic departments of primary care. The 141 researchers with the highest volume of publications reporting research findings published between 2001 and 2007 (inclusive) authored or part authored 8.3% of the total sample of papers. For authors with the highest proportion of publications cited at least five times, the best performers came from the United States (n=5), United Kingdom (n=4), and the Netherlands (n=2). In the top 10 of authors with the highest proportions of publications achieving 20 or more citations, six were from the United Kingdom and four from the United States. The mean Hirsch index (measure of a researcher's productivity and impact of the published work) was 14 for the Netherlands, 13 for the United Kingdom, 12 for the United States, 7 for Canada, 4 for Australia, and 3 for Germany.ConclusionThis international comparison of the volume and citation rates of papers by researchers from primary care consistently placed UK researchers among the best performers internationally.