Patient preferences for characteristics differentiating ovarian stimulation treatments

Human Reproduction

Volumn 27, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 760-769

  Landfeldt, Erik ^a   Jablonowska, Barbara ^b   Norlander, Elisabeth ^c   Persdotter Eberg, Karin ^d   Thurin Kjellberg, Ann ^e   Wramsby, Margaretha ^f   Strm, Oskar ^g  

^a OptumInsight   (Sweden)

^b Reproduktionsmedicinskt Centrum (RMC) Universitetssjukhuset   (Sweden)

^c MERCK KGAA   (Germany)

^d KAROLINSKA UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Sweden)

^e UNIVERSITY OF GOTHENBURG   (Sweden)

^f IVF Clinic CURA   (Sweden)

^g KAROLINSKA INSTITUTE   (Sweden)

Author keywords

conjoint analysis; contingent valuation; FSH; IVF; Sweden

Indexed keywords

GONADOTROPIN; RECOMBINANT FOLLITROPIN;

ADULT; CLINICAL DECISION MAKING; CLINICAL PRACTICE; CONFIDENCE INTERVAL; CONTINGENT VALUATION; CONTROLLED STUDY; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; FEMALE INFERTILITY; FERTILIZATION IN VITRO; HEALTH CARE; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; PATIENT COMPLIANCE; PATIENT PREFERENCE; PATIENT SATISFACTION; POPULATION RESEARCH; POSTMENOPAUSE; QUESTIONNAIRE; RECOMBINANT DNA TECHNOLOGY; REVIEW; SWEDEN; SYRINGE;

EID: 84857228699     PISSN: 02681161     EISSN: 14602350     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/humrep/der449     Document Type: Review

References (33)

1. Adrian Furnham, Hua Chu Boo. A literature review of the anchoring effect. J Socio-Econ 2011;40:35-42.
2. Bassett R, Lispi M, Ceccarelli D, Grimaldi L, Mancinelli M, Martelli F, Van DA. Analytical identification of additional impurities in urinary-derived gonadotrophins. Reprod Biomed Online 2009; 19:300-313.
3. Bohannon NJ. Insulin delivery using pen devices. Simple-to-use tools may help young and old alike. Postgrad Med 1999;106:57-58, 68.
4. Bridges JF. Stated preference methods in health care evaluation: an emerging methodological paradigm in health economics. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 2003;2:213-224.
5. Daya S. Methodologic pitfalls in assessing the efficacy of recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone versus human menopausal gonadotropin in assisted reproduction. Fertil Steril 2003;80:1100-1104. (Pubitemid 37377731)
6. Driebergen R, Baer G. Quantification of follicle stimulating hormone (follitropin alfa): is in vivo bioassay still relevant in the recombinant age? Curr Med Res Opin 2003;19:41-46. (Pubitemid 36378319)
7. Graff MR, McClanahan MA. Assessment by patients with diabetes mellitus of two insulin pen delivery systems versus a vial and syringe. Clin Ther 1998;20:486-496. (Pubitemid 28343501)
8. Greenfield S, Kaplan SH, Ware JE Jr, Yano EM, Frank HJ. Patients' participation in medical care: effects on blood sugar control and quality of life in diabetes. J Gen Intern Med 1988;3:448-457.
9. Hanestad BR, Albrektsen G. Quality of life, perceived difficulties in adherence to a diabetes regimen, and blood glucose control. Diabet Med 1991;8:759-764.
10. Howles CM. Role of LH and FSH in ovarian function. Mol Cell Endocrinol 2000;161:25-30. (Pubitemid 30201646)
11. Hugues JN, Barlow DH, Rosenwaks Z, Cedrin-Durnerin I, Robson S, Pidoux L, Loumaye E. Improvement in consistency of response to ovarian stimulation with recombinant human follicle stimulating hormone resulting from a new method for calibrating the therapeutic preparation. Reprod Biomed Online 2003;6:185-190. (Pubitemid 36857147)
12. Hyllested-Winge J, Jensen KH, Rex J. A review of 25 years' experience with the NovoPen family of insulin pens in the management of diabetes mellitus. Clin Drug Investig 2010;30:643-674.
13. Kadiri A, Chraibi A, Marouan F, Ababou MR, el Guermai N, Wadjinny A, Kerfati A, Douiri M, Bensouda JD, Belkhadir J et al. Comparison of NovoPen 3 and syringes/vials in the acceptance of insulin therapy in NIDDM patients with secondary failure to oral hypoglycaemic agents. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 1998;41:15-23. (Pubitemid 28394280)
14. Klose T. The contingent valuation method in health care. Health Policy 1999;47:97-123. (Pubitemid 29241789)
15. Kriström B. A non-parametric approach to the estimation of welfare measures in discrete response valuation studies. Land Econ 1990; 66:135-139.
16. Lehert P, Schertz JC, Ezcurra D. Recombinant human follicle-stimulating hormone produces more oocytes with a lower total dose per cycle in assisted reproductive technologies compared with highly purified human menopausal gonadotrophin: a meta-analysis. Reprod Biol Endocrinol 2010;8:112.
17. Ludwig M, Felberbaum RE, Diedrich K, Lunenfeld B. Ovarian stimulation: from basic science to clinical application. Reprod Biomed Online 2002; 5(Suppl. 1):73-86.
18. Lunenfeld B. Historical perspectives in gonadotrophin therapy. Hum Reprod Update 2004;10:453-467. (Pubitemid 39529879)
19. Markle RL, King PJ, Martin DB. Characteristics of successful human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) administration in assisted reproduction. Fertil Steril 2002;78(Suppl. 1):71-72.
20. Orme B. Getting Started with Conjoint Analysis: Strategies for Product Design and Pricing Research. Madison, WI: Research Publishers LLC, 2005.
21. Pang S, Kaplan B, Karande V, Westphal LM, Scott R, Givens C, Sacks P. Administration of recombinant human FSH (solution in cartridge) with a pen device in women undergoing ovarian stimulation. Reprod Biomed Online 2003;7:319-326. (Pubitemid 37259286)
22. Platteau P, Laurent E, Albano C, Osmanagaoglu K, Vernaeve V, Tournaye H, Camus M, Van SA, Devroey P. An open, randomized single-centre study to compare the efficacy and convenience of follitropin beta administered by a pen device with follitropin alpha administered by a conventional syringe in women undergoing ovarian stimulation for IVF/ICSI. Hum Reprod 2003;18:1200-1204. (Pubitemid 36740564)
23. Rajkhowa M, McConnell A, Thomas GE. Reasons for discontinuation of IVF treatment: a questionnaire study. Hum Reprod 2006;21:358-363. (Pubitemid 43159907)
24. Ryan M. Using conjoint analysis to take account of patient preferences and go beyond health outcomes: an application to in vitro fertilisation. Soc Sci Med 1999;48:535-546. (Pubitemid 29023284)
25. Ryan M, Farrar S. Using conjoint analysis to elicit preferences for health care. BMJ 2000;320:1530-1533. (Pubitemid 30330316)
26. Akter S, Bennett J, Akhter S. Preference uncertainty in contingent valuation. Ecol Econ 2008;67:345-351.
27. Steelman SL, Pohley FM. Assay of the follicle stimulating hormone based on the augmentation with human chorionic gonadotropin. Endocrinology 1953;53:604-616.
28. Stevens TH, Belkner R, Dennis D, Kittredge D, Willis C. Comparison of contingent valuation and conjoint analysis in ecosystem management. Ecol Econ 2000;32:63-74. (Pubitemid 30023538)
29. Sucic M, Galic E, Cabrijan T, Ivandic A, Petrusic A, Wyatt J, Mincheva N, Milicevic Z, Malone J. Patient acceptance and reliability of new Humulin/Humalog 3. 0 ml prefilled insulin pen in ten Croatian diabetes centres. Med Sci Monit 2002;8:I21-I26.
30. Tversky A, Kahneman D. Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science 1974;185:1124-1131.
31. van Wely M, Kwan I, Burt AL, Thomas J, Vail A, Van der V, Al-Inany HG. Recombinant versus urinary gonadotrophin for ovarian stimulation in assisted reproductive technology cycles. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011;CD005354.
32. Verberg MF, Eijkemans MJ, Heijnen EM, Broekmans FJ, de KC, Fauser BC, Macklon NS. Why do couples drop-out from IVF treatment? A prospective cohort study. Hum Reprod 2008;23:2050-2055.
33. Weiss N. Gonadotrophin products: empowering patients to choose the product that meets their needs. Reprod Biomed Online 2007;15:31-37. (Pubitemid 47162092)