Preferences of diabetes patients and physicians: A feasibility study to identify the key indicators for appraisal of health care values
Tóm tắt
Evidence-based medicine, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) and the German Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG), support the inclusion of patients' preferences in health care decisions. In fact there are not many trials which include an assessment of patient's preferences. The aim of this study is to demonstrate that preferences of physicians and of patients can be assessed and that this information may be helpful for medical decision making. One of the established methods for assessment of preferences is the conjoint analysis. Conjoint analysis, in combination with a computer assisted telephone interview (CATI), was used to collect data from 827 diabetes patients and 60 physicians, which describe the preferences expressed as levels of four factors in the management and outcome of the disease. The first factor described the main treatment effect (reduction of elevated HbA1c, improved well-being, absence of side effects, and no limitations of daily life). The second factor described the effect on the body weight (gain, no change, reduction). The third factor analyzed the mode of application (linked to meals or flexible application). The fourth factor addressed the type of product (original brand or generic product). Utility values were scaled and normalized in a way that the sum of utility points across all levels is equal to the number of attributes (factors) times 100. The preference weights confirm that the reduction of body weight is at least as important for patients - especially obese patients - and physicians as the reduction of an elevated HbA1c. Original products were preferred by patients while general practitioners preferred generic products. Using the example of diabetes, the difference between patients' and physicians' preferences can be assessed. The use of a conjoint analysis in combination with CATI seems to be an effective approach for generation of data which are needed for policy and medical decision making in health care.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Gray JA Muir: Evidence-based policy making - is about taking decisions based on evidence and the needs and values of the population. BMJ 2004, 329: 988–989. 10.1136/bmj.329.7473.988
Laurence C, Gialamas A, Yelland L, Bubner T, Ryan P, Willson K, Glastonbury B, Gill J, Shephard M, Beilby J, for members of the PoCT Trial Management Committee: A pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial to evaluate the safety, clinical effectiveness, cost effectiveness and satisfaction with point of care testing in a general practice setting - rationale, design and baseline characteristics. Trials 2008, 9: 50. 10.1186/1745-6215-9-50
Friedman LM, Furberg CD, DeMets DL: Fundamentals of Clinical Trials. 2nd edition. Boston: PSG, Inc; 1985.
Godwin M, Ruhland L, Casson I, MacDonald S, Delva D, Birtwhistle R, Lam M, Seguin R: Pragmatic controlled clinical trials in primary care: the struggle between external and internal validity. BMC Med Res Methodol 2003, 3: 28. 10.1186/1471-2288-3-28
Thorpe KE, Zwarenstein M, Oxman AD, Treweek S, Furberg CD, Altman DG, Tunis S, Bergel E, Harvey I, Magid DJ, Chalkidou K: A pragmatic-explanatory continuum indicator summary (PRECIS): a tool to help trial designers. J Clin Epidemiol 2009, 62: 464–475. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.12.011
Straus SE, Richardson WS, Glasziou P, Haynes RB: Evidence-Based Medicine. How to practice and teach EBM. Edinburgh: Elsevier Churchill Livingstone; 2005.
Porzsolt F, Pressel H, Maute-Stephan C, KIndervater R, Geldmacher J, Meierkord S, Sigle JM, Eisemann M: Appraisal of healthcare: from patient value to societal benefit. J Publ Health 2009.
Pindyck RS, Rubinfeld DL: Microeconomics. 6th edition. New Jersey: Prentice Hall; 2005.
Beresniak A, Russell AS, Haraoui B, Bessette L, Bombardier C, Duru G: Advantages and limitations of utility assessment methods in rheumatoid arthritis. J Rheumatol 2007, 34: 2193–2200.
Kymes SM, Lee BS: Preference-based quality of life measures in people with visual impairment. Optom Vis Sci 2007, 84: 809–816. 10.1097/OPX.0b013e3181337638
Huang ES, Shook M, Jin L, Chin MH, Meltzer DO: The impact of patient preferences on the cost-effectiveness of intensive glucose control in older patients with new-onset diabetes. Diabetes Care 2006, 29: 259–64. 10.2337/diacare.29.02.06.dc05-1443
Kornmann M, Porzsolt F: Treatment preferences of physicians and lay persons: lessons from a study analysing neoadjuvant treatment of rectal carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 2008, 26: 2866–4868. 10.1200/JCO.2008.16.2891
Phillips KA, Maddala T, Johnson FR: Measuring preferences for health care interventions using conjoint analysis: an application to HIV testing. Health Serv Res 2002, 37: 1681–1705. 10.1111/1475-6773.01115
Ratcliffe J, Van Haselen R, Buxton M, Hardy K, Colehan J, Partridge M: Assessing patients' preferences for characteristics associated with homeopathic and conventional treatment of asthma: a conjoint analysis study. Thorax 2002, 57: 503–508. 10.1136/thorax.57.6.503
Ross M, Avery A, Foss A: Views of older people on cataract surgery options: an assessment of preferences by conjoint analysis. Qual Saf Health Care 2003, 12: 13–17. 10.1136/qhc.12.1.13
Ryan M, Farrar S: Using conjoint analysis to elicit preferences for health care. BMJ 2000, 320: 1530–1533. 10.1136/bmj.320.7248.1530
Stiggelbout AM, de Vogel-Voogt E, Noordijk EM, Vliet Vlieland TP: Individual quality of life: adaptive conjoint analysis as an alternative for direct weighting? Qual Life Res 2008, 17: 641–649. 10.1007/s11136-008-9325-6
Kahneman D, Tversky A: An analysis of decision under risk. Prospect theory Econometrica 1979, 47: 263–291.
Ortendahl M: Shared decision-making based on different features of risk in the context of diabetes mellitus and rheumatoid arthritis. Ther Clin Risk Manag 2007, 3: 1175–1180.
Chin MH, Drum ML, Jin L, Shook ME, Huang ES, Meltzer DO: Variation in treatment preferences and care goals among older patients with diabetes and their physicians. Med Care 2008, 46: 275–286. 10.1097/MLR.0b013e318158af40
Montori VM, Gafni A, Charles C: A shared treatment decision-making approach between patients with chronic conditions and their clinicians: the case of diabetes. Health Expect 2006, 9: 25–36. 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2006.00359.x
Sachverständigenrat zur Begutachtung der gesamtwirtschaftlichen Entwicklung des Statistischen Bundesamts: Das Erreichte nicht verspielen. Jahresgutachten; 2007. [http://www.sachverstaendigenrat-wirtschaft.de/download/gutachten/jg07_ges.pdf]
Committee on Comparative Effectiveness Research Prioritization, Institute of Medicine: Initial National Priorities for Comparative Effectiveness Research. Washington, DC: Institute of Medicine; 2009.