Literature DB >> 10867115

Comparison of preferences for health outcomes in schizophrenia among stakeholder groups.

T T Lee1, J K Ziegler, R Sommi, C Sugar, R Mahmoud, L A Lenert.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: To determine the effectiveness of psychiatric interventions for use in cost-effectiveness analysis, we assessed the feasibility of using a multimedia computer survey to study preferences (utilities) for health outcomes among persons with schizophrenia, family members of persons with schizophrenia, health professionals, and the public.
METHODS: We developed videos depicting two patterns of mental health impairment in schizophrenia, both with and without pseudo-parkinsonism side-effects. These descriptions were integrated into a computer program that measured preferences using two psychometric methods: (1) standard gamble and (2) a visual analog scale. This program was used to compare preferences among potential stakeholder groups.
RESULTS: 20 persons with schizophrenia, 11 family members, 20 healthy volunteers and 14 health professionals participated in the computerized interview. All but one subject completed the survey. The correlation among ratings of various states was high (r=0.7-0.95) and ratings were internally consistent in 89% of participants. There were significant differences in values between groups for health states (p=0.024) and in values for the effects of pseudo-parkinsonism on quality of life (p<0.001). Persons with schizophrenia valued the disease states more highly and placed more significance than did other groups on the effects of pseudo-parkinsonism on quality of life.
CONCLUSIONS: Computer-based multimedia techniques can offer a feasible and valid approach to measure preferences for outcomes in schizophrenia. The study found significant differences in preferences among stakeholder groups for schizophrenia outcomes. Further work is needed to clarify how these differences affect clinical decision-making and policies for health resource allocation.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2000        PMID: 10867115     DOI: 10.1016/s0022-3956(00)00009-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Psychiatr Res        ISSN: 0022-3956            Impact factor:   4.791


  8 in total

1.  Using the effect size to model change in preference values from descriptive health status.

Authors:  Kristy Sanderson; Gavin Andrews; Justine Corry; Helen Lapsley
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2004-09       Impact factor: 4.147

Review 2.  A review and critique of studies reporting utility values for schizophrenia-related health states.

Authors:  Ifigeneia Mavranezouli
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2010       Impact factor: 4.981

3.  The risks of multimedia methods: effects of actor's race and gender on preferences for health states.

Authors:  L A Lenert; J Ziegler; T Lee; C Unfred; R Mahmoud
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2000 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 4.497

4.  Valuing health in a racially and ethnically diverse community sample: an analysis using the valuation metrics of money and time.

Authors:  Norah E Mulvaney-Day; Marcela Horvitz-Lennon; Chih-Nan Chen; Mara Laderman; Margarita Alegría
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2010-08-01       Impact factor: 4.147

5.  The reliability and internal consistency of an Internet-capable computer program for measuring utilities.

Authors:  L A Lenert
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2000       Impact factor: 4.147

6.  Measuring preferences for schizophrenia outcomes with the time tradeoff method.

Authors:  Martha Shumway; Tandy L Chouljian; Cynthia L Battle
Journal:  J Behav Health Serv Res       Date:  2005 Jan-Mar       Impact factor: 1.505

Review 7.  What matters to patients? A systematic review of preferences for medication-associated outcomes in mental disorders.

Authors:  Øystein Eiring; Brynjar Fowels Landmark; Endre Aas; Glenn Salkeld; Magne Nylenna; Kari Nytrøen
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2015-04-08       Impact factor: 2.692

8.  Impact of schizophrenia and schizophrenia treatment-related adverse events on quality of life: direct utility elicitation.

Authors:  Andrew Briggs; Diane Wild; Michael Lees; Matthew Reaney; Serdar Dursun; David Parry; Jayanti Mukherjee
Journal:  Health Qual Life Outcomes       Date:  2008-11-28       Impact factor: 3.186

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.