| 1. |
- Monzani, Dario, et al.
(författare)
-
Patient Preferences for Lung Cancer Treatments: A Study Protocol for a Preference Survey Using Discrete Choice Experiment and Swing Weighting
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Frontiers in Medicine. - : Frontiers Media SA. - 2296-858X. ; 8
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Advanced treatment options for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) consist of immunotherapy, chemotherapy, or a combination of both. Decisions surrounding NSCLC can be considered as preference-sensitive because multiple treatments exist that vary in terms of mode of administration, treatment schedules, and benefit–risk profiles. As part of the IMI PREFER project, we developed a protocol for an online preference survey for NSCLC patients exploring differences in preferences according to patient characteristics (preference heterogeneity). Moreover, this study will evaluate and compare the use of two different preference elicitation methods, the discrete choice experiment (DCE) and the swing weighting (SW) task. Finally, the study explores how demographic (i.e., age, gender, and educational level) and clinical (i.e., cancer stage and line of treatment) information, health literacy, health locus of control, and quality of life may influence or explain patient preferences and the usefulness of a digital interactive tool in providing information on preference elicitation tasks according to patients.Methods: An online survey will be implemented with the aim to recruit 510 NSCLC patients in Belgium and Italy. Participants will be randomized 50:50 to first receive either the DCE or the SW. The survey will also collect information on participants' disease-related status, health locus of control, health literacy, quality of life, and perception of the educational tool.Discussion: This protocol outlines methodological and practical steps to quantitatively elicit and study patient preferences for NSCLC treatment alternatives. Results from this study will increase the understanding of which treatment aspects are most valued by NSCLC patients to inform decision-making in drug development, regulatory approval, and reimbursement. Methodologically, the comparison between the DCE and the SW task will be valuable to gain information on how these preference methods perform against each other in eliciting patient preferences. Overall, this protocol may assist researchers, drug developers, and decision-makers in designing quantitative patient preferences into decision-making along the medical product life cycle.
|
|
| 2. |
- Veldwijk, Jorien, et al.
(författare)
-
How psychological distance of a study sample in discrete choice experiments affects preference measurement : a colorectal cancer screening case study
- 2019
-
Ingår i: Patient Preference and Adherence. - : DOVE MEDICAL PRESS LTD. - 1177-889X. ; 13, s. 273-282
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Purpose: The purpose of this study was to investigate to what extent the outcomes of a discrete choice experiment (DCE) differ based on respondents' psychological distance to the decision at hand. Methods: A DCE questionnaire regarding individuals' preferences for genetic screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) within the Dutch national CRC screening program was created. The DCE contained nine D-efficient designed choice tasks and was distributed among two populations that differ in their psychological distance to the decision at hand: 1) a representative sample of the Dutch general population aged 55-65 years, and 2) a sample of Dutch individuals who attended an information appointment regarding colonoscopies following the detection of blood in their stool sample in the CRC screening program. The DCE consisted of four attributes related to the decision whether to participate in genetic screening for CRC: 1) risk of being genetically predisposed, 2) risk of developing CRC, 3) frequency of follow-up colonoscopies, and 4) survival. Direct attribute ranking, dominant decision-making behavior, and relative importance scores (based on panel MIXL) were compared between the two populations. Attribute level estimates were compared with the Swait and Louviere test. Results: The proportion of respondents who both ranked survival as the most important attribute, and showed dominant decision-making behavior for this attribute, was significantly higher in the screened population compared to the general population. The relative importance scores of the attributes significantly differed between populations. Finally, the Swait and Louviere test also revealed significant differences in attribute level estimates in both the populations. Conclusion: The study outcomes differed between populations depending on their psychological distance to the decision. This study shows the importance of adequate sample selection; therefore, it is advocated to increase attention to study sample selection and reporting in DCE studies.
|
|
| 3. |
- DiSantostefano, Rachael L., et al.
(författare)
-
Research Priorities to Increase Confidence in and Acceptance of Health Preference Research: What Questions Should be Prioritized Now?
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Patient. - 1178-1653 .- 1178-1661. ; 17:2, s. 179-190
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- AbstractBackground and ObjectiveThere has been an increase in the study and use of stated-preference methods to inform medicine development decisions. The objective of this study was to identify prioritized topics and questions relating to health preferences based on the perspective of members of the preference research community.MethodsPreference research stakeholders from industry, academia, consultancy, health technology assessment/regulatory, and patient organizations were recruited using professional networks and preference-targeted e-mail listservs and surveyed about their perspectives on 19 topics and questions for future studies that would increase acceptance of preference methods and their results by decision makers. The online survey consisted of an initial importance prioritization task, a best-worst scaling case 1 instrument, and open-ended questions. Rating counts were used for analysis. The best-worst scaling used a balanced incomplete block design.ResultsOne hundred and one participants responded to the survey invitation with 66 completing the best-worst scaling. The most important research topics related to the synthesis of preferences across studies, transferability across populations or related diseases, and method topics including comparison of methods and non-discrete choice experiment methods. Prioritization differences were found between respondents whose primary affiliation was academia versus other stakeholders. Academic researchers prioritized methodological/less studied topics; other stakeholders prioritized applied research topics relating to consistency of practice.ConclusionsAs the field of health preference research grows, there is a need to revisit and communicate previous work on preference selection and study design to ensure that new stakeholders are aware of this work and to update these works where necessary. These findings might encourage discussion and alignment among different stakeholders who might hold different research priorities. Research on the application of previous preference research to new contexts will also help increase the acceptance of health preference information by decision makers.
|
|
| 4. |
- Durosini, Ilaria, et al.
(författare)
-
Patient Preferences for Lung Cancer Treatment: A Qualitative Study Protocol Among Advanced Lung Cancer Patients
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Frontiers In Public Health. - : Frontiers Media SA. - 2296-2565. ; 9
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Introduction: Lung cancer is the deadliest and most prevalent cancer worldwide. Lung cancer treatments have different characteristics and are associated with a range of benefits and side effects for patients. Such differences may raise uncertainty among drug developers, regulators, payers, and clinicians regarding the value of these treatment effects to patients. The value of conducting patient preference studies (using qualitative and/or quantitative methods) for benefits and side effects of different treatment options has been recognized by healthcare stakeholders, such as drug developers, regulators, health technology assessment bodies, and clinicians. However, evidence-based guidelines on how and when to conduct and use these studies in drug decision-making are lacking. As part of the Innovative Medicines Initiative PREFER project, we developed a protocol for a qualitative study that aims to understand which treatment characteristics are most important to lung cancer patients and to develop attributes and levels for inclusion in a subsequent quantitative preference survey.Methods: The study protocol specifies a four-phased approach: (i) a scoping literature review of published literature, (ii) four focus group discussions with stage III and IV Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer patients, (iii) two nominal group discussions with stage III and IV Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer patients, and (iv) multi-stakeholder discussions involving clinicians and preference experts.Discussion: This protocol outlines methodological and practical steps as to how qualitative research can be applied to identify and develop attributes and levels for inclusion in patient preference studies aiming to inform decisions across the drug life cycle. The results of this study are intended to inform a subsequent quantitative preference survey that assesses patient trade-offs regarding lung cancer treatment options. This protocol may assist researchers, drug developers, and decision-makers in designing qualitative studies to understand which treatment aspects are most valued by patients in drug development, regulation, and reimbursement.
|
|
| 5. |
- Jimenez-Moreno, A. Cecilia, et al.
(författare)
-
Patient Preferences in Rare Diseases: A Qualitative Study in Neuromuscular Disorders to Inform a Quantitative Preference Study
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Patient. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1178-1653 .- 1178-1661.
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- IntroductionIt has become increasingly important to include patient preference information in decision-making processes for drug development. As neuromuscular disorders represent multisystem, debilitating, and progressive rare diseases with few treatment options, this study aimed to explore unmet health care needs and patient treatment preferences for two neuromuscular disorders, myotonic dystrophy type 1 (DM1) and mitochondrial myopathies (MM) to inform early stages of drug development.MethodsFifteen semi-structured interviews and five focus group discussions (FGDs) were held with DM1 and MM adult patients and caregivers. Topics discussed included (1) reasons for study participation; (2) disease signs/symptoms and their impact on daily lives; (3) top desired benefits; and (4) acceptability of risks and tolerance levels for a hypothetical new treatment. Data were analyzed following a thematic ‘code’ approach.ResultsA total of 52 participants representing a wide range of disease severities participated. ‘Muscle strength’ and ‘energy and endurance’ were the disease-related unmet needs most often mentioned. Additionally, improved ‘balance’, ‘cognition’ and ‘gut function’ were the top desired treatment benefits, while ‘damage to the liver, kidneys or eyes’ was the most concerning risk. Factors influencing their tolerance to risks related to previously having experienced the risk and differentiation between permanent and temporary risks. A few differences were elicited between patients and caregivers.ConclusionsThis qualitative study provided an open forum to elicit treatment-desired benefits and acceptable risks to be established by patients themselves. These findings can inform decisions for developing new treatments and the design of clinical trials for DM1 and MM.
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
- Soekhai, Vikas, et al.
(författare)
-
Comparing Outcomes of a Discrete Choice Experiment and Case 2 Best-Worst Scaling : An Application to Neuromuscular Disease Treatment
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Patient. - : Springer Nature. - 1178-1653 .- 1178-1661. ; 16:3, s. 239-253
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background and ObjectivesCase 2 best-worst scaling (BWS-2) is an increasingly popular method to elicit patient preferences. Because BWS-2 potentially has a lower cognitive burden compared with discrete choice experiments, the aim of this study was to compare treatment preference weights and relative importance scores.MethodsPatients with neuromuscular diseases completed an online survey at two different moments in time, completing one method per occasion. Patients were randomly assigned to either first a discrete choice experiment or BWS-2. Attributes included: muscle strength, energy endurance, balance, cognition, chance of blurry vision, and chance of liver damage. Multinomial logit was used to calculate overall relative importance scores and latent class logit was used to estimate heterogeneous preference weights and to calculate the relative importance scores of the attributes for each latent class.ResultsA total of 140 patients were included for analyses. Overall relative importance scores showed differences in attribute importance rankings between a discrete choice experiment and BWS-2. Latent class analyses indicated three latent classes for both methods, with a specific class in both the discrete choice experiment and BWS-2 in which (avoiding) liver damage was the most important attribute. Ex-post analyses showed that classes differed in sex, age, level of education, and disease status. The discrete choice experiment was easier to understand compared with BWS-2.ConclusionsThis study showed that using a discrete choice experiment and BWS-2 leads to different outcomes, both in preference weights as well as in relative importance scores, which might have been caused by the different framing of risks in BWS-2. However, a latent class analysis revealed similar latent classes between methods. Careful consideration about method selection is required, while keeping the specific decision context in mind and pilot testing the methods.
|
|
| 8. |
- Blankestijn, Peter J., et al.
(författare)
-
Benefits and harms of high-dose haemodiafiltration versus high-flux haemodialysis : The comparison of high-dose haemodiafiltration with high-flux haemodialysis (CONVINCE) trial protocol
- 2020
-
Ingår i: BMJ Open. - : BMJ. - 2044-6055. ; 10:2
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Introduction End-stage kidney disease (ESKD) is a major public health problem affecting more than 2 million people worldwide. It is one of the most severe chronic non-communicable diseases. Haemodialysis (HD) is the most common therapeutic option but is also associated with a risk of cardiovascular events, hospitalisation and suboptimal quality of life. Over the past decades, haemodiafiltration (HDF) has become available. Although high-dose HDF has shown some promising survival advantage compared to conventional HD, the evidence remains controversial. A Cochrane systematic review found, in low-quality trials, with various convective forms of dialysis, a reduction in cardiovascular, but not all-cause mortality and the effects on non-fatal cardiovascular events and hospitalisation were uncertain. In contrast, an individual patient data analysis suggested that high-dose HDF reduced both all-cause and cardiovascular mortality compared to HD. In view of these discrepant results, a definitive trial is required to determine whether high-dose HDF is preferable to high-flux HD. The comparison of high-dose HDF with high-flux HD (CONVINCE) study will assess the benefits and harms of high-dose HDF versus a conventional high-flux HD in adults with ESKD. Methods and analysis This international, prospective, open label, randomised controlled trial aims to recruit 1800 ESKD adults treated with HD in nine European countries. Patients will be randomised 1:1 to high-dose HDF versus continuation of conventional high-flux HD. The primary outcome will be all-cause mortality at 3 years' follow-up. Secondary outcomes will include cause-specific mortality, cardiovascular events, all-cause and infection-related hospitalisations, patient-reported outcomes (eg, health-related quality of life) and cost-effectiveness. Ethics and dissemination The CONVINCE study will address the question of benefits and harms of high-dose HDF compared to high-flux HD for kidney replacement therapy in patients with ESKD with a focus on survival, patient perspectives and cost-effectiveness. Trial registration number Netherlands National Trial Register (NTR 7138).
|
|
| 9. |
- Hiensch, Anouk E, et al.
(författare)
-
Design of a multinational randomized controlled trial to assess the effects of structured and individualized exercise in patients with metastatic breast cancer on fatigue and quality of life : the EFFECT study.
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Trials. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1745-6215. ; 23:1, s. 610-
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: Many patients with metastatic breast cancer experience cancer- and treatment-related side effects that impair activities of daily living and negatively affect the quality of life. There is a need for interventions that improve quality of life by alleviating fatigue and other side effects during palliative cancer treatment. Beneficial effects of exercise have been observed in the curative setting, but, to date, comparable evidence in patients with metastatic breast cancer is lacking. The aim of this study is to assess the effects of a structured and individualized 9-month exercise intervention in patients with metastatic breast cancer on quality of life, fatigue, and other cancer- and treatment-related side effects.METHODS: The EFFECT study is a multinational, randomized controlled trial including 350 patients with metastatic breast cancer. Participants are randomly allocated (1:1) to an exercise or control group. The exercise group participates in a 9-month multimodal exercise program, starting with a 6-month period where participants exercise twice a week under the supervision of an exercise professional. After completing this 6-month period, one supervised session is replaced by one unsupervised session for 3 months. In addition, participants are instructed to be physically active for ≥30 min/day on all remaining days of the week, while being supported by an activity tracker and exercise app. Participants allocated to the control group receive standard medical care, general written physical activity advice, and an activity tracker, but no structured exercise program. The primary outcomes are quality of life (EORTC QLQ-C30, summary score) and fatigue (EORTC QLQ-FA12), assessed at baseline, 3, 6 (primary endpoint), and 9 months post-baseline. Secondary outcomes include physical fitness, physical performance, physical activity, anxiety, depression, pain, sleep problems, anthropometric data, body composition, and blood markers. Exploratory outcomes include quality of working life, muscle thickness, urinary incontinence, disease progression, and survival. Additionally, the cost-effectiveness of the exercise program is assessed. Adherence and safety are monitored throughout the intervention period.DISCUSSION: This large randomized controlled trial will provide evidence regarding the (cost-) effectiveness of exercise during treatment of metastatic breast cancer. If proven (cost-)effective, exercise should be offered to patients with metastatic breast cancer as part of standard care.TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04120298 . Registered on October 9, 2019.
|
|
| 10. |
- Oliveri, Serena, et al.
(författare)
-
Opportunities and Challenges of Web-Based and Remotely Administered Surveys for Patient Preference Studies in a Vulnerable Population
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Patient Preference and Adherence. - : Informa UK Limited. - 1177-889X. ; 15, s. 2509-2517
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The application of web-based and remotely administered surveys is becoming increasingly popular due to the fact that it offers numerous advantages over traditional paper-based or computer-based surveys completed in the presence of the researcher. However, it is unclear whether complex preference elicitation tasks administered online in highly vulnerable patient populations are also feasible. This commentary discusses opportunities and challenges of conducting quantitative patient preference studies in lung cancer patients using web-based modes of data collection. We refer to our recent experience in the context of the Patient Preference in Benefit-Risk Assessments during the Drug Life Cycle (PREFER) project. Among the main advantages were the possibility of reaching a wider and geographically distant population in a shorter timeframe while reducing the financial costs of testing, the greater flexibility offered and the reduced burden on the patients. Some limitations were also identified and should be the object of further research, including the potential lack of inclusiveness of the research, the lack of control over who is completing the survey, a poor comprehension of the study material, and ultimately a lower level of engagement with the study. Despite these limitations, experience from the PREFER project suggests that online quantitative methods for data collection may provide a valuable method to explore preferences in vulnerable patient populations beyond the COVID-19 pandemic.
|
|
