Use of best-worst scaling to assess patient perceptions of treatments for refractory overactive bladder

Neurourology and Urodynamics

Volumn 35, Issue 8, 2016, Pages 1028-1033

  Beusterien, Kathleen ^a   Kennelly, Michael J ^b   Bridges, John F P ^c   Amos, Kaitlan ^a   Williams, Mary Jo ^d   Vasavada, Sandip ^e  

^a ORS Health   (United States)

^b Dickson Advanced Analytics Group   (United States)

^c JOHNS HOPKINS BLOOMBERG SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

^d MEDTRONIC   (United States)

^e LERNER RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (United States)

Author keywords

Best Worst Scaling; patient preference; refractory OAB treatment

Indexed keywords

BOTULINUM TOXIN A;

ADULT; ARTICLE; ATTITUDE ASSESSMENT; BEST WORST SCALING; BLADDER CATHETERIZATION; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY; FEMALE; HUMAN; INTERVIEW; LIKERT SCALE; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MEDICAL DEVICE COMPLICATION; NERVE STIMULATION; OVERACTIVE BLADDER; PATIENT PREFERENCE; PATIENT SAFETY; PERCUTANEOUS TIBIAL NERVE STIMULATION; QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS; SACRAL NERVE STIMULATION; TREATMENT OUTCOME; UNITED KINGDOM; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84991244898     PISSN: 07332467     EISSN: 15206777     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/nau.22876     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Lee UJ, Scott VC, Rashid R, et al. Defining and managing overactive bladder: disagreement among the experts. Urology 2013; 81:257–62.
2. Gormley EA, Lightner DJ, Faraday M, et al. Diagnosis and treatment of overactive bladder (Non-Neurogenic) in adults: AUA/SUFU guideline amendment. J Urol 2015; 193:1572–80.
3. IUGA, 2013: International Urogyneocological Association. Sacral Neuromodulaton: A guide for women. 2013. Available from: http://c.ymcdn.com/sites/www.iuga.org/resource/resmgr/brochures/eng_sacralneuro.pdf
4. Nitti VW. Botulinum toxin for the treatment of idiopathic and neurogenic overactive bladder: State of the art. Rev Urol 2006; 8:198–208.
5. Walsh J, Percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation for the treatment of overactive bladder. California Technology Assessment Forum. June 2012 Available from 2012; http://ctaf.org/sites/default/files/assessments/PTNS%20June%202012_0.pdf
6. Ryan. Using conjoint analysis to elicit preferences for health care. BMJ. 2000 320:1530.
7. Johnson E, Lancsar D, Marshall V, et al. Constructing experimental designs for discrete- choice experiments: Report of the ISPOR conjoint analysis discrete- choice experiment experimental design good research practices task force. Value Health 2013; 16:3–13.
8. Flynn TN. Valuing citizen and patient preferences in health: Recent developments in three types of best worst scaling. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 2010; 10:259–67.
9. Umberger W, Stringer R, Mueller SC. Selected Paper prepared for presentation at the Agricultural & Applied Economics. Using Best-Worst Scaling to Determine Market Channel Choice by Small Farmers in Indonesia. Association 2010 AAEA,CAES, & WAEA Joint Annual Meeting, Denver, Colorado, July 25-27, 2010. Available from: file:///C:/Users/HP/Downloads/09e41509c80e7d6875000000.pdf
10. Peay HL, Hollin I, Fischer R, et al. A community-engaged approach to quantifying caregiver preferences for the benefits and risks of emerging therapies for Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Clin Ther 2014; 36:624–37.
11. Hollin I, Peay P, Bridges J. Caregiver preferences for emerging Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy treatments: A comparison of best-worst-scaling and conjoint analysis. Patient 2015; 8:19–27.
12. Hemphill JF. Interpreting the magnitudes of correlation coefficients. Am Psychol 2003; 54:78–80.
13. Levy M et al. Patient defined goals of care in treatment of medication refractory overactive bladder. Neurourol Urodyn 2014; 33:180.
14. Leong RK, Marcelissen TA, Nieman FH, et al. Satisfaction and patient experience with sacral neuromodulation: Results from a single center sample survey. J Urol 2011; 185:588–92.
15. Bauer RM, Gratzke C, Roosen A, et al. Patient-reported side effects of intradetrusor botulinum toxin type A for idiopathic overactive bladder syndrome. Urol Int 2011; 86:68–72.
16. MDIC, 2015: Medical Device Innovation Consortium Patient Centered Benefit-Risk Project Report, 2015: http://mdic.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/MDIC_PCBR_Framework_Proof5_Web.pdf
17. CDRH: Draft Guidance on Patient Preference Information-Submission, Review in PMAs, HDE Applications, and De Novo Requests and Inclusion in Device Labeling Issued May 18 2015; http://www.fda.gov/ucm/groups/fdagov-public/@fdagov-meddev-gen/documents/document/ucm446680.pdf