Patient preferences for disease-modifying drugs in multiple sclerosis therapy: A choice-based conjoint analysis

Therapeutic Advances in Neurological Disorders

Volumn 7, Issue 6, 2014, Pages 263-275

  Utz, Kathrin S ^a   Hoog, Jana ^a   Wentrup, Andreas ^a   Berg, Sebastian ^a   Lummer, Alexandra ^a   Jainsch, Britta ^a   Waschbisch, Anne ^a   Lee, D Hyung ^a   Linker, Ralf A ^a   Schenk, Thomas ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ERLANGEN NUREMBERG   (Germany)

Author keywords

choice based conjoint analysis; multiple sclerosis; oral; parenteral; patient preference; treatment frequency

Indexed keywords

DISEASE MODIFYING DRUG; MISCELLANEOUS DRUGS AND AGENTS; UNCLASSIFIED DRUG;

ADULT; AGED; ANXIETY; ARTICLE; BLOOD CELL COUNT; DEPRESSION; DISEASE PREDISPOSITION; DRUG ADMINISTRATION ROUTE; EXPANDED DISABILITY STATUS SCALE; FATIGUE; FEMALE; FLU LIKE SYNDROME; GASTROINTESTINAL SYMPTOM; HAIR LOSS; HUMAN; INFECTION; INJECTION SITE PAIN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS; PATIENT ASSESSMENT; PATIENT DECISION MAKING; PATIENT PREFERENCE; PILL; QUESTIONNAIRE; SKIN MANIFESTATION; SLEEP DISORDER; WEIGHT CHANGE;

EID: 84908895145     PISSN: 17562856     EISSN: 17562864     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1756285614555335     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. de Bekker-Grob E. Ryan M. Gerard K. (2012) Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature. Health Econ 21: 145–172.
2. Green P. Krieger A. Wind Y. (2001) Thirty years of conjoint analysis: reflections and prospects. Interfaces 31: S56–S73.
3. Johnson F. van Houtven G. Ozdemir S. Hass S. White J. Francis G. et al. (2009) Multiple sclerosis patients’ benefit-risk preferences: serious adverse event risks versus treatment efficacy. J Neurol 256: 554–562.
4. Killestein J. Rudick R. Polman C. (2011) Oral treatment for multiple sclerosis. Lancet Neurol 10: 1026–1034.
5. Linker R. Kieseier B. Gold R. (2008) Identification and development of new therapeutics for multiple sclerosis. Trends Pharmacol Sci 29: 558–565.
6. Palace J. (2013) Partnership and consent in MS treatment choice. J Neurol Sci 335: 5–8.
7. Patti F. (2010) Optimizing the benefit of multiple sclerosis therapy: the importance of treatment adherence. Patient Prefer Adher 4: 1–9.
8. Polman C.H. Reingold S.C. Banwell B. Clanet M. Cohen J.A. Filippi M. et al. (2011) Diagnostic criteria for multiple sclerosis: 2010 revisions to the McDonald criteria. [Research Support, Non-US Gov't]. Ann Neurol 69 (2): 292–302. DOI: 10.1002/ana.22366.
9. Prosser L. Kuntz K. Bar-Or A. Weinstein M. (2003) Patient and community preferences for treatments and health states in multiple sclerosis. Mult. Scler. 9: 311–319.
10. Ryan M. Farrar S. (2000) Using conjoint analysis to elicit preferences for health care. Br Med J 320: 1530–1533.
11. Ryan M. Mcintosh E. Shackley P. (1998) Methodological issues in the application of conjoint analysis in health care. Health Econ 7: 373–378.
12. Ryan M. Scott D. Reeves C. Bate A. van Teijlingen E. Russell E. et al. (2001) Eliciting public preferences for healthcare: a systematic review of techniques. Health Technol Assess 5: 1–186.
13. Stacey D. Bennett C. Barry M. Col N. Eden K. Holmes-Rovner M. et al. (2011) Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001431.pub3.
14. Wilke T. (2009) Patient preferences for an oral anticoagulant after major orthopedic surgery: results of a German survey. Patient 2: 39–49.
15. Zimmermann T. Clouth J. Elosge M. Heurich M. Schneider E. Wilhelm S. et al. (2013) Patient preferences for outcomes of depression treatment in Germany: a choice-based conjoint analysis study. J Affect Disord 148: 210–219.