Literature DB >> 11021674

Differences in health values among patients, family members, and providers for outcomes in schizophrenia.

L A Lenert1, J Ziegler, T Lee, R Sommi, R Mahmoud.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The objectives of this study were to determine whether there are important differences in how patients, family members, and health care providers (HCPs) value health outcomes in schizophrenia and to assess the degree to which such differences, if they exist, could adversely affect clinical and policy decision making.
METHODS: Participants viewed videotaped depictions of simulated patients with mild and moderate symptoms of schizophrenia, with and without a common adverse drug effect (pseudoparkinsonism), and then provided standard gamble and visual analog scale ratings of desirability of these states.
SUBJECTS: A convenience sample of unrelated patients (n = 148), family members of patients (n = 91), and HCPs (nurses, psychologists, doctors of pharmacy, and doctors of medicine; n = 99) was drawn from geographically and clinically diverse environments.
RESULTS: Patients' and family members' utilities for health states averaged 0.1 to 0.15 units higher than those of HCPs (P <0.002 for differences between groups, ANOVA for multiple observations). The disutility of adverse drug effects was less for health professionals than patients and family members (P = 0.008). Health professionals tended to prefer states with mild symptoms with extrapyramidal side effects to states with moderate symptoms. Patients and family members found these states equally preferable (P <0.007 for differences between groups).
CONCLUSIONS: There are systematic differences in values for health outcomes between patients and HCPs with regard to states with adverse effects of antipsychotic drugs. Family members of patients in general had values that were more similar to those of patients than were those of health professionals. The results emphasize the importance of participation by patients (or family member proxies) in clinical decision making and guideline development.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Empirical Approach; Mental Health Therapies; Professional Patient Relationship

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2000        PMID: 11021674     DOI: 10.1097/00005650-200010000-00005

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Care        ISSN: 0025-7079            Impact factor:   2.983


  10 in total

1.  Use of the internet to study the utility values of the public.

Authors:  Leslie A Lenert; Ann E Sturley
Journal:  Proc AMIA Symp       Date:  2002

2.  Testing subject comprehension of utility questionnaires.

Authors:  Deborah G Dobrez; Elizabeth A Calhoun
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2004-03       Impact factor: 4.147

Review 3.  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

4.  Maximal endurable time states and the standard gamble: more preference reversals.

Authors:  P F M Stalmeier; A L Verheijen
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2012-12-09

5.  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

6.  Health state valuation in mild to moderate cognitive impairment: feasibility of computer-based, direct patient utility assessment.

Authors:  Neal V Dawson; Mendel E Singer; Leslie Lenert; Marian B Patterson; Susie A Sami; Iahn Gonsenhouser; Heather A Lindstrom; Kathleen A Smyth; Melissa J Barber; Peter J Whitehouse
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2008-03-18       Impact factor: 2.583

Review 7.  Patients' subjective experiences of antipsychotics: clinical relevance.

Authors:  Jonathan S E Hellewell
Journal:  CNS Drugs       Date:  2002       Impact factor: 5.749

8.  Association of participant preferences on work and school participation after a first episode of psychosis.

Authors:  Alexandra de Waal; Lisa B Dixon; Jennifer L Humensky
Journal:  Early Interv Psychiatry       Date:  2017-10-20       Impact factor: 2.732

Review 9.  Conceptual and methodological issues in the design of clinical trials of antipsychotics for the treatment of schizophrenia.

Authors:  William G Honer; Allen E Thornton; Megan Sherwood; G William MacEwan; Tom S Ehmann; Richard Williams; Lili C Kopala; Ric Procyshyn; Alasdair M Barr
Journal:  CNS Drugs       Date:  2007       Impact factor: 5.749

10.  The subjective well-being under neuroleptic scale - short version (SWN-K) and the SF-36 health survey as quality of life measures in patients with schizophrenia.

Authors:  Jorge Mauriño; Luis Cordero; Javier Ballesteros
Journal:  Patient Prefer Adherence       Date:  2012-01-23       Impact factor: 2.711

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.