What matters to patients? A systematic review of preferences for medication-associated outcomes in mental disorders

BMJ Open

Volumn 5, Issue 4, 2015, Pages

  Eiring, Øystein ^a,b   Landmark, Brynjar Fowels ^c   Aas, Endre ^c   Salkeld, Glenn ^d   Nylenna, Magne ^a,b   Nytrøen, Kari ^a,c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OSLO   (Norway)

^b NORWEGIAN KNOWLEDGE CENTRE FOR THE HEALTH SERVICES   (Norway)

^c INNLANDET HOSPITAL TRUST   (Norway)

^d UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

PSYCHOTROPIC AGENT;

ARTICLE; ATTENTION DEFICIT DISORDER; BIPOLAR DISORDER; COPING BEHAVIOR; DEPRESSION; DISEASE SEVERITY; HEALTH STATUS; HOSPITALIZATION; HUMAN; MENTAL DISEASE; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PATIENT PREFERENCE; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; SCHIZOPHRENIA; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; TREATMENT OUTCOME; MENTAL DISORDERS;

HUMANS; MENTAL DISORDERS; PATIENT PREFERENCE; PSYCHOTROPIC DRUGS; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 84929337794     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20446055     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-007848     Document Type: Article

References (74)

1. st century. USA: The Institute of Medicine, 2001. http://www.iom.edu/~/media/Files/Report%20Files/2001/Crossing-the-Quality-Chasm/Quality%20Chasm%202001%20%20report%20brief.pdf
2. Picker H. Moving beyond measurement. Oxford, UK: Picker Institute Europe, 2012/13. http://www.pickereurope.org/assets/content/pdf/Annual-Reviews-&-Financial-Statements/2012-13%20Annual%20Review%20FINAL.pdf
3. IAPO. What is Patient-Centred Healthcare? A review of Definitions and Principles. International Alliance of Patients' Organizations (IAPO), 2004:37.
4. Sackett DL, Rosenberg WMC, Gray JAM, et al. Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn't. BMJ 1996;312:71-2.
5. AGREE. Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation (AGREE) Instrument. The AGREE Collaboration, 2001. http://apps.who.int/rhl/agreeinstrumentfinal.pdf
6. Elwyn G, Frosch D, Rollnick S. Dual equipoise shared decision making: definitions for decision and behaviour support interventions. Implement Sci 2009;4:75.
7. Facey K, Boivin A, Gracia J, et al. Patients' perspectives in health technology assessment: a route to robust evidence and fair deliberation. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2010;26:334-40.
8. Breckenridge A. Patient opinions and preferences in drug development and regulatory decision making. Drug Discov Today Technol 2011;8:e1-e42.
9. Egbrink M, IJzerman M. The value of quantitative patient preferences in regulatory benefit-risk assessment. J Mark Access Health Policy [S.l.] Apr 2014. http://www.jmahp.net/index.php/jmahp/article/view/22761.
10. Marshall D. A Radical Idea: Make Patient Preferences an Integral Part of Health Care. The Official News & Technical Journal of The International Society For Pharmacoeconomics And Outcomes Research, 2012-2013. http://www.ispor.org/News/articles/Jan-Feb2013/presidents-message.asp (accessed 5 May 2014).
11. America's state of mind: Medco Health Solutions, Inc., 2001-2010. http://apps.who.int/medicinedocs/documents/s19032en/s19032en.pdf
12. Alonso J, Angermeyer MC, Bernert S, et al. Psychotropic drug utilization in Europe: results from the European Study of the Epidemiology of Mental Disorders (ESEMeD) project. Acta Psychiatr Scand Suppl 2004:55-64.
13. Gartlehner G, Hansen RA, Morgan LC, et al. Comparative benefits and harms of second-generation antidepressants for treating major depressive disorder: an updated meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med 2011;155:772-85.
14. Adam WR, Schweitzer I, Walker RG. Trade-off between the benefits of lithium treatment and the risk of chronic kidney disease. Nephrology 2012;17:776-9.
15. Leucht S, Cipriani A, Spineli L, et al. Comparative efficacy and tolerability of 15 antipsychotic drugs in schizophrenia: a multiple-treatments meta-analysis. Lancet 2013;382:951-62.
16. McHugh RK, Whitton SW, Peckham AD, et al. Patient preference for psychological vs pharmacologic treatment of psychiatric disorders: a meta-analytic review. J Clin Psychiatry 2013;74:595-602.
17. Swift JK, Callahan JL. The impact of client treatment preferences on outcome: a meta-analysis. Br J Clin Psychol 2009;65:368-81.
18. Gelhorn HL, Sexton CC, Classi PM. Patient preferences for treatment of major depressive disorder and the impact on health outcomes: a systematic review. Prim Care Companion CNS Disord 2011;13:PCC.11r01161.
19. Ryan M, Scott DA, Reeves C, et al. Eliciting public preferences for healthcare: a systematic review of techniques. Health Technol Assess 2001;5:1-186.
20. Bridges JF. Stated preference methods in health care evaluation: an emerging methodological paradigm in health economics. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 2003;2:213-24.
21. Ryan M, Kinghorn P, Entwistle VA, et al. Valuing patients' experiences of healthcare processes: towards broader applications of existing methods. Soc Sci Med 2014;106:194-203.
22. Green CA, Estroff SE, Yarborough BJ, et al. Directions for future patient-centered and comparative effectiveness research for people with serious mental illness in a learning mental health care system. Schizophr Bull 2014;40(Suppl 1):S1-94.
23. Brennan PF, Strombom I. Improving health care by understanding patient preferences: the role of computer technology. JAMIA 1998;5:257-62.
24. Bridges JF, Onukwugha E, Johnson FR, et al. Patient preference methods - a patient-centered evaluation paradigm. ISPOR Connections 2007;13:4-7.
25. Opmeer BC, de Borgie CA, Mol BW, et al. Assessing preferences regarding healthcare interventions that involve non-health outcomes: an overview of clinical studies. Patient 2010;3:1-10.
26. Umar N, Yamamoto S, Loerbroks A, et al. Elicitation and use of patients' preferences in the treatment of psoriasis: a systematic review. Acta Derm Venereol 2012;92:341-6.
27. Review of stated preference and willingness to pay methods. London: Accent and RAND Europe, 2010. http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.competition-commission.org.uk/our-role/analysis/summary-and-report-combined.pdf
28. Lenert L, Kaplan RM. Validity and interpretation of preference-based measures of health-related quality of life. Med Care 2000;38(9 Suppl): Ii138-50.
29. AERA A, NCME. The Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing. Washington, DC: AERA Publication Sales, 2000. http://www.apa.org/science/programs/testing/standards.aspx
30. Soares M, Dumville JC. Critical appraisal of cost-effectiveness and cost-utility studies in health care. Evid Based Nurs 2008;11:99-102.
31. Higgins JPT, Altman DG. Assessing Risk of Bias in Included Studies Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 2008:187-241.
32. Akers J. Systematic Reviews: CRD's guidance for undertaking reviews in health care. Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, 2009. http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/pdf/Systematic-Reviews.pdf
33. rd edn. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005.
34. Johnson FR, Ozdemir S, Manjunath R, et al. Factors that affect adherence to bipolar disorder treatments: a stated-preference approach. Med Care 2007;45:545-52.
35. Zimmermann TM, Clouth J, Elosge M, et al. Patient preferences for outcomes of depression treatment in Germany: a choice-based conjoint analysis study. J Affect Disord 2013;148:210-19.
36. Bridges JF, Slawik L, Schmeding A, et al. A test of concordance between patient and psychiatrist valuations of multiple treatment goals for schizophrenia. Health Expect 2013;16:164-76.
37. Glenngård AH, Hjelmgren J, Thomsen PH, et al. Patient preferences and willingness-to-pay for ADHD treatment with stimulants using discrete choice experiment (DCE) in Sweden, Denmark and Norway. Nord J Psychiatry 2013;67:351-9.
38. O'Brien BJ, Novosel S, Torrance G, et al. Assessing the economic value of a new antidepressant. A willingness-to-pay approach. PharmacoEconomics 1995;8:34-45.
39. Morss SE, Lenert LA, Faustman WO. The side effects of antipsychotic drugs and patients' quality of life: patient education and preference assessment with computers and multimedia. Proc Annu Symp Comput Appl Med Care 1993:17-21.
40. Briggs A, Wild D, Lees M, et al. Impact of schizophrenia and schizophrenia treatment-related adverse events on quality of life: direct utility elicitation. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2008;6:105.
41. Morey E, Thacher JA, Craighead WE. Patient preferences for depression treatment programs and willingness to pay for treatment. J Ment Health Policy Econ 2007;10:73-85.
42. Kinter ET, Prior TJ, Carswell CI, et al. A comparison of two experimental design approaches in applying conjoint analysis in patient-centered outcomes research: a randomized trial. Patient 2012;5:279-94.
43. Revicki DA, Hanlon J, Martin S, et al. Patient-based utilities for bipolar disorder-related health states. J Affect Disord 2005;87:203-10.
44. Lee TT, Ziegler JK, Sommi R, et al. Comparison of preferences for health outcomes in schizophrenia among stakeholder groups. J Psychiatr Res 2000;34:201-10.
45. Shumway M. Preference weights for cost-outcome analyses of schizophrenia treatments: comparison of four stakeholder groups. Schizophr Bull 2003;29:257-66.
46. Lenert LA, Morss S, Goldstein MK, et al. Measurement of the validity of utility elicitations performed by computerized interview. Med Care 1997;35:915-20.
47. Revicki DA, Wood M. Patient-assigned health state utilities for depression-related outcomes: differences by depression severity and antidepressant medications. J Affect Disord 1998;48:25-36.
48. Revicki DA, Shakespeare A, Kind P. Preferences for schizophrenia-related health states: a comparison of patients, caregivers and psychiatrists. Int Clin Psychopharmacol 1996;11:101-8.
49. Lancaster KJ. A new approach to consumer theory. J Pol Econ 1966;74:132-57.
50. Riabacke M, Danielson M, Ekenberg L. Review Article State-of-the-Art Prescriptive Criteria Weight Elicitation. 2012. http://downloads.hindawi.com/journals/ads/2012/276584.pdf
51. th ed: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines. Chest 2012;141(2 Suppl):e1S-e23S.
52. Arx L-B, Kjær T. The patient perspective of diabetes care: a systematic review of stated preference research. Patient 2014;7:283-300.
53. Beller EM, Chen JK-H, Wang UL-H, et al. Are systematic reviews up-to-date at the time of publication? Syst Rev 2013;2:36.
54. Shojania G, Sampson M, Ansari MT, et al. How quickly do systematic reviews go out of date? A survival analysis. JAMA J Am Med Assoc 2007;147:224-33.
55. Stamuli E. Health outcomes in economic evaluation: who should value health? Br Med Bull 2011;97:197-210.
56. Özdemir SJFR. Estimating willingness to pay: do health and environmental researchers have different methodological standards? Appl Econ 2013;45:2215-29.
57. Hampson M, Killaspy H, Mynors-Wallis L, et al. Outcome measures recommended for use in adult psychiatry. R College Psych 2011 (OP78).
58. Gartlehner G, Flamm M. Is The Cochrane Collaboration prepared for the era of patient-centred outcomes research? Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013;3:ED000054.
59. Hickam D, Totten A, Berg AR, et al., eds. The PCORI Methodology Report. USA: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, 2013: Appendix A. http://www.pcori.org/assets/2013/11/PCORI-Methodology-Report.pdf
60. Wortley S, Wong G, Kieu A, et al. Assessing stated preferences for colorectal cancer screening: a critical systematic review of discrete choice experiments. Patient 2014;7:271-82.
61. Vieta A, Badia X, Álvarez E, et al. Which nontraditional outcomes should be measured in healthcare decision-making in schizophrenia? A systematic review. Perspect Psychiatr Care 2012;48:198-207.
62. Seeman MV. Antipsychotics and physical attractiveness. Clini schizophr Relat Psychoses 2011;5:142-6.
63. Peeters Y, Stiggelbout AM. Health state valuations of patients and the general public analytically compared: a meta-analytical comparison of patient and population health state utilities. Value Health 2010;13:306-9.
64. Krabbe PF, Tromp N, Ruers TJ, et al. Are patients' judgments of health status really different from the general population? Health Qual Life Outcomes 2011;9:31.
65. Barclay-Goddard R, King J, Dubouloz CJ, et al. Building on transformative learning and response shift theory to investigate health-related quality of life changes over time in individuals with chronic health conditions and disability. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2012;93:214-20.
66. Neuman T, Neuman E, Neuman S. Explorations of the effect of experience on preferences for a health-care service. JSocio-Econ 2010;39:407-19.
67. Shumway M, Sentell T, Chouljian T, et al. Assessing preferences for schizophrenia outcomes: comprehension and decision strategies in three assessment methods. Ment Health Serv Res 2003;5:121-35.
68. Voruganti LN, Awad AG, Oyewumi LK, et al. Assessing health utilities in schizophrenia. A feasibility study. Pharmacoeconomics 2000;17:273-86.
69. Konig HH. Measuring preferences of psychiatric patients. Psychiatr Prax 2004;31:118-27.
70. Flood C. Should "standard gamble" and "'time trade off" utility measurement be used more in mental health research? J Ment Health Policy Econ 2010;13:65-72.
71. Robert G, Cornwell J, Brearley S, et al. What matters to patients? Developing the evidence base for measuring and improving patient experience. Coventry, UK: The Department of Health and NHS Institute for Innovation & Improvement and King's College London, 2011:1-200. http://www.institute.nhs.uk/images/Patient-Experience/Final%20Project%20Report%20pdf%20doc%20january%202012.pdf
72. Stacey D, Legare F, Col NF, et al. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2014;1:CD001431.
73. De Wit GA, Busschbach JJ, De Charro FT. Sensitivity and perspective in the valuation of health status: whose values count? Health Econ 2000;9:109-26.
74. NICE. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. London, UK: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, 2013. http://www.nice.org.uk/media/D45/1E/GuideToMethodsTechnologyAppraisal2013.pdf