Dataset Information

Health Economists on Involving Patients in Modeling: Potential Benefits, Harms, and Variables of Interest.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Patient involvement in health economics modeling has been advocated on numerous grounds, including as a way to better manage social and ethical value judgments in the modeling process. However, some have pointed to potential risks and variables that could influence the overall benefit of involvement. To inform future research, there is a need to generate knowledge on potential benefits, harms, and variables relevant to patient involvement in health economics modeling.

Methods

This analysis used data from a qualitative study in which 22 health economists were asked their views on the possibility of involving patients in the modeling process. Using qualitative methods, the authors organized participants' responses into theory-driven categories ("potential benefits", "potential harms", "variables of interest") and identified data-driven themes and subthemes within those categories.

Results

Findings point to potential benefits and harms to the model, modeler, patient, and modeling process. Variables of interest relevant to future research included patients' specific roles, modeler and patient characteristics, the goals of modeling, dynamics among participators, and features of high-level procedures. The findings raise a number of specific questions that may be fruitful to explore in future research on patient involvement in health economics modeling.

SUBMITTER: Harvard S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8200342 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionLittle is known about how patients weigh benefits and harms of available treatments for Parkinson's Disease (oral medication, deep brain stimulation, infusion therapy). In this study we have (1) elicited patient preferences for benefits, side effects and process characteristics of treatments and (2) measured patients' preferred and perceived involvement in decision-making about treatment.MethodsPreferences were elicited using a best-worst scaling case 2 experiment. Attributes were selected based on 18 patient-interviews: treatment modality, tremor, slowness of movement, posture and balance problems, drowsiness, dizziness, and dyskinesia. Subsequently, a questionnaire was distributed in which patients were asked to indicate the most and least desirable attribute in nine possible treatment scenarios. Conditional logistic analysis and latent class analysis were used to estimate preference weights and identify subgroups. Patients also indicated their preferred and perceived degree of involvement in treatment decision-making (ranging from active to collaborative to passive).ResultsTwo preference patterns were found in the patient sample (N = 192). One class of patients focused largely on optimising the process of care, while the other class focused more on controlling motor-symptoms. Patients who had experienced advanced treatments, had a shorter disease duration, or were still employed were more likely to belong to the latter class. For both classes, the benefits of treatment were more influential than the described side effects. Furthermore, many patients (45%) preferred to take the lead in treatment decisions, however 10.8% perceived a more passive or collaborative role instead.DiscussionPatients weighted the benefits and side effects of treatment differently, indicating there is no "one-size-fits-all" approach to choosing treatments. Moreover, many patients preferred an active role in decision-making about treatment. Both results stress the need for physicians to know what is important to patients and to share treatment decisions to ensure that patients receive the treatment that aligns with their preferences.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Controversy persists about optimal mammography screening strategies. OBJECTIVE:To evaluate screening outcomes, taking into account advances in mammography and treatment of breast cancer. DESIGN:Collaboration of 6 simulation models using national data on incidence, digital mammography performance, treatment effects, and other-cause mortality. SETTING:United States. PATIENTS:Average-risk U.S. female population and subgroups with varying risk, breast density, or comorbidity. INTERVENTION:Eight strategies differing by age at which screening starts (40, 45, or 50 years) and screening interval (annual, biennial, and hybrid [annual for women in their 40s and biennial thereafter]). All strategies assumed 100% adherence and stopped at age 74 years. MEASUREMENTS:Benefits (breast cancer-specific mortality reduction, breast cancer deaths averted, life-years, and quality-adjusted life-years); number of mammograms used; harms (false-positive results, benign biopsies, and overdiagnosis); and ratios of harms (or use) and benefits (efficiency) per 1000 screens. RESULTS:Biennial strategies were consistently the most efficient for average-risk women. Biennial screening from age 50 to 74 years avoided a median of 7 breast cancer deaths versus no screening; annual screening from age 40 to 74 years avoided an additional 3 deaths, but yielded 1988 more false-positive results and 11 more overdiagnoses per 1000 women screened. Annual screening from age 50 to 74 years was inefficient (similar benefits, but more harms than other strategies). For groups with a 2- to 4-fold increased risk, annual screening from age 40 years had similar harms and benefits as screening average-risk women biennially from 50 to 74 years. For groups with moderate or severe comorbidity, screening could stop at age 66 to 68 years. LIMITATION:Other imaging technologies, polygenic risk, and nonadherence were not considered. CONCLUSION:Biennial screening for breast cancer is efficient for average-risk populations. Decisions about starting ages and intervals will depend on population characteristics and the decision makers' weight given to the harms and benefits of screening. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE:National Institutes of Health.