Literature DB >> 21844733

Evaluation of patients' preferences for genital herpes treatment.

Luciana Scalone1, Verity Watson, Mandy Ryan, Nikolaos Kotsopoulos, Rajul Patel.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Genital herpes (GH) is widespread, and detrimental to patients' quality of life. It is not always adequately treated, however, with potential consequences for patients' well-being and healthcare costs. Involving patients in treatment decisions can increase their satisfaction and adherence. We investigated patients' preferences for different GH treatments.
METHODS: A discrete choice experiment was administered to 154 subjects with GH. Subjects chose between different treatment options: episodic, suppressive, or no treatment, described according to: chance of GH recurrence; chance of transmitting the GH virus to a partner; chance of becoming infected with HIV; number of tablets to be taken every day and during an outbreak; and out-of-pocket cost. Subjects' willingness to pay and probability of treatment uptake were estimated.
RESULTS: Subjects preferred antiviral treatment to no treatment, and subjects receiving suppressive treatment preferred this treatment to no treatment. Effect of treatment on GH recurrence and HIV infection rates was a significant influence on subject's choice, as were the number of tablets taken daily and during an outbreak and out-of pocket treatment cost. Subjects were willing to pay between $15.50 and $73.41 for treatment. Subjects' willingness to pay depends on the type of treatment and their current treatment.
CONCLUSIONS: Subjects' preferences are influenced by both the treatment they follow and attributes of treatment including cost. Knowledge of patients' preferences, together with their clinical status, could help decision-makers to optimize therapy uptake and success.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21844733     DOI: 10.1097/OLQ.0b013e318218702c

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Sex Transm Dis        ISSN: 0148-5717            Impact factor:   2.830


  7 in total

Review 1.  Risk as an attribute in discrete choice experiments: a systematic review of the literature.

Authors:  Mark Harrison; Dan Rigby; Caroline Vass; Terry Flynn; Jordan Louviere; Katherine Payne
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2014       Impact factor: 3.883

Review 2.  Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature.

Authors:  Michael D Clark; Domino Determann; Stavros Petrou; Domenico Moro; Esther W de Bekker-Grob
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2014-09       Impact factor: 4.981

3.  Preferences for ARV-based HIV prevention methods among men and women, adolescent girls and female sex workers in Gauteng Province, South Africa: a protocol for a discrete choice experiment.

Authors:  Matthew Quaife; Robyn Eakle; Maria Cabrera; Peter Vickerman; Motlalepule Tsepe; Fiona Cianci; Sinead Delany-Moretlwe; Fern Terris-Prestholt
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2016-06-27       Impact factor: 2.692

4.  Exploring patient preference heterogeneity for pharmacological treatments for chronic pain: A latent class analysis.

Authors:  David A Walsh; Marco Boeri; Lucy Abraham; Jo Atkinson; Andrew G Bushmakin; Joseph C Cappelleri; Brett Hauber; Kathleen Klein; Leo Russo; Lars Viktrup; Dennis Turk
Journal:  Eur J Pain       Date:  2022-01-08       Impact factor: 3.651

5.  The Role of Patients' Age on Their Preferences for Choosing Additional Blood Pressure-Lowering Drugs: A Discrete Choice Experiment in Patients with Diabetes.

Authors:  Sieta T de Vries; Folgerdiena M de Vries; Thijs Dekker; Flora M Haaijer-Ruskamp; Dick de Zeeuw; Adelita V Ranchor; Petra Denig
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-10-07       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 6.  The use of discrete choice experiments to inform health workforce policy: a systematic review.

Authors:  Kate L Mandeville; Mylene Lagarde; Kara Hanson
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2014-09-01       Impact factor: 2.655

Review 7.  Stated-preference research in HIV: A scoping review.

Authors:  John M Humphrey; Violet Naanyu; Katherine R MacDonald; Kara Wools-Kaloustian; Gregory D Zimet
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-10-30       Impact factor: 3.752

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.