Taking patient heterogeneity and preferences into account in health technology assessments

International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care

Volumn 33, Issue 5, 2017, Pages 562-569

  Kievit, Wietske ^a   Tummers, Marcia ^a   Van Hoorn, Ralph ^a   Booth, Andrew ^b   Mozygemba, Kati ^c   Refolo, Pietro ^d   Sacchini, Dario ^d   Pfadenhauer, Lisa ^e   Gerhardus, Ansgar ^c   Van Der Wilt, Gert Jan ^f  

^a RADBOUD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^b Health Economics and Decision Science (HEDS)   (United Kingdom)

^c Institute for Public Health and Nursing Research (IPP)   (United Kingdom)

^d Institute of Bioethics and Medical Humanities   (United States)

^e Institute for Biometrics   (United States)

^f Donders Institute for Brai   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Complex interventions; Health technology assessment; INTEGRATE HTA; Moderators; Patient preferences; Predictors

Indexed keywords

MODERATORS;

COMPLEX INTERVENTIONS; HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENTS; INTEGRATE-HTA; PATIENT PREFERENCES; PREDICTORS;

PATIENT TREATMENT;

ARTICLE; BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; CLINICAL EFFECTIVENESS; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; COST CONTROL; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; ETHNICITY; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HEMODIALYSIS; HUMAN; MEASUREMENT ACCURACY; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; PALLIATIVE THERAPY; PATIENT PREFERENCE; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SEX DIFFERENCE; TREATMENT OUTCOME; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; JURISPRUDENCE; METHODOLOGY; ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT; SEARCH ENGINE; SOCIOECONOMICS;

EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; HUMANS; JURISPRUDENCE; PATIENT PREFERENCE; RESEARCH DESIGN; SEARCH ENGINE; SOCIOECONOMIC FACTORS; TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT, BIOMEDICAL;

EID: 85033378643     PISSN: 02664623     EISSN: 14716348     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0266462317000885     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Gerhardus A. Integrated health technology assessment for evaluating complex technologies (INTEGRATE-HTA): An introduction to the guidances. 2016. http://www. integrate-hta. eu/downloads/ (accessed July 20, 2017)
2. Van Hoorn R, Tummers M, Kievit W, van der Wilt GJ. Guidance for the assessment of treatment moderation and patients' preferences. 2016. http://www. integrate-hta. eu/downloads/ (accessed July 20, 2017)
3. Kraemer HC, Wilson GT, Fairburn CG, Agras WS. Mediators and moderators of treatment effects in randomized clinical trials. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2002; 59: 877-883
4. Nicholson RA, Hursey KG, Nash JM. Moderators and mediators of behavioral treatment for headache. Headache. 2005; 45: 513-519
5. Baron RM, Kenny DA. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1986; 51: 1173-82
6. MacCorquodale K, Meehl PE. On a distinction between hypothetical constructs and intervening variables. Psychol Rev. 1948; 55: 95-107
7. March JS, Curry JF. Predicting the outcome of treatment. J Abnorm Child Psychol. 1998; 26: 39-51
8. Kraemer HC, Kiernan M, Essex M, Kupfer DJ. How and why criteria defining moderators and mediators differ between the Baron & Kenny and MacArthur approaches. Health Psychol. 2008; 27: S101-S108
9. Viechtbauer W. 31 Analysis of moderator effects in metaanalysis. Best practices in quantitative methods. Thousand Oaks CA: SAGE Publications, Inc; 2008: 471-487
10. Jenkins M. Evaluation of methodological search filters-a review. Health Info Libr J. 2004; 21: 148-163
11. White VJ, Glanville JM, Lefebvre C, Sheldon TA. A statistical approach to designing search filters to find systematic reviews: Objectivity enhances accuracy. J Info Sci. 2001; 27: 357-370
12. Bachmann LM, Coray R, Estermann P, Ter Riet G. Identifying diagnostic studies in MEDLINE: Reducing the number needed to read. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2002; 9: 653-658
13. Sun X, Briel M, Busse JW, et al. Credibility of claims of subgroup effects in randomised controlled trials: Systematic review. BMJ. 2012; 344: e1553
14. Pincus T, Miles C, Froud R, et al. Methodological criteria for the assessment of moderators in systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials: A consensus study. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2011; 11: 14
15. Fitch K, Bernstein SJ, Aguilar MD, Burnand B, LaCalle JR. The RAND/UCLA appropriateness method user's manual. DTIC Document; 2001
16. Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, et al. The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2011; 343
17. Reuzel RP, van der Wilt GJ, ten Have HA, de Vries Robbe PF. Interactive technology assessment and wide reflective equilibrium. J Med Philos. 2001; 26: 245-261
18. Janssen IM, Scheibler F, Gerhardus A. Importance of hemodialysisrelated outcomes: Comparison of ratings by a self-help group, clinicians, and health technology assessment authors with those by a large reference group of patients. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2016; 10: 2491-500
19. Jansen SJ, Kievit J, Nooij MA, Stiggelbout AM. Stability of patients' preferences for chemotherapy: The impact of experience. Med Decis Making. 2001; 21: 295-306
20. Ely JW, Osheroff JA, Chambliss ML, Ebell MH, Rosenbaum ME. Answering physicians' clinical questions: Obstacles and potential solutions. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2005; 12: 217-224
21. Eiring O, Landmark BF, Aas E, et al. What matters to patients? A systematic review of preferences for medication-associated outcomes in mental disorders. BMJ Open. 2015; 5: e007848
22. Opmeer BC, de Borgie CA, Mol BW, Bossuyt PM. Assessing preferences regarding healthcare interventions that involve non-health outcomes: An Overview of clinical studies. Patient. 2010; 3: 1-10
23. Janssen IM, Gerhardus A, Schroer-Gunther MA, Scheibler F. A descriptive review on methods to prioritize outcomes in a health care context. Health Expect. 2015; 18: 1873-1893
24. van Hoorn R Kievit W, Booth A, et al. The development of PubMed search strategies for patient preferences for treatment outcomes. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2016; 16: 88
25. Wahlster P, Brereton L, Burns J, et al. Guidance on the integrated assessment of complex health technologies-The INTEGRATE-HTA Model. http://www. integrate-hta. eu/downloads/ (accessed July 20, 2017)
26. Rohwer AB, Booth A, Pfadenhauer L, et al. Guidance on the use of logic models in health technology assessments of complex interventions. http://www. integrate-hta. eu/downloads/ (accessed July 20, 2017)
27. Brereton L, Wahlster P, Lysdahl KB, et al. Integrated assessment of home based palliative care with and without reinforced caregiver support: 'A Demonstration of INTEGRATE-HTA methodological guidances'. 2016. http://www. integrate-hta. eu/downloads/ (accessed July 20, 2017)
28. Barnato AE, Anthony DL, Skinner J, Gallagher PM, Fisher ES. Racial and ethnic differences in preferences for end-of-life treatment. J Gen Intern Med. 2009; 24: 695-701
29. Isaacs JD, Ferraccioli G. The need for personalised medicine for rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis. 2011; 70: 4-7
30. Jakka S, Rossbach M. An economic perspective on personalized medicine. HUGO J. 2013; 7: 1-6
31. Bridges JF, Jones C. Patient-based health technology assessment: A vision of the future. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2007; 23: 30-35