Literature DB >> 22264978

Stated preferences of physicians and chronic pain sufferers in the use of classic strong opioids.

Jeremy Chancellor1, Monique Martin, Hiltrud Liedgens, Mary G Baker, Gerhard H H Müller-Schwefe.   

Abstract

We conducted a two-stage study in France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom of the stated preferences of chronic pain sufferers treated with classic strong opioids and of physicians treating such patients. The qualitative stage identified attributes perceived important through focus groups with 84 pain sufferers and semistructured interviews with 11 physicians. The quantitative stage included online, discrete choice experiments (DCEs) in which respondents chose between hypothetical profiles or an opt-out in 15 choice tasks. The profile descriptions were based on the attributes elicited in the qualitative stage. DCEs were conducted for pain sufferers (N = 242) and physicians (N = 270) who passed a rationality test. Main-effects models were estimated by hierarchical Bayesian regression. Sufferers ranked nausea, pain impact, energy, alertness, and constipation; physicians ranked pain response, central nervous system (CNS) effects, nausea, dose form, and constipation in descending order of importance. Sufferers were unwilling to incur severe side effects to decrease pain and chose the opt-out in approximately one half of the choice tasks, whereas physicians were willing to trade between profiles. The models predicted physicians' choices better than those of pain sufferers. No age, sex, or country effects were seen, but stronger preferences were found among physicians treating noncancer (n = 40) than cancer pain and among the 55% of sufferers who had never discontinued long-term pain medication use. Sufferers' mean pain scores on an 11-point Likert scale were 4.0, 5.7, and 8.6 on their best, average, and worst days, respectively.
Copyright © 2012 International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2011        PMID: 22264978     DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2011.07.002

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Value Health        ISSN: 1098-3015            Impact factor:   5.725


  16 in total

Review 1.  A descriptive review on methods to prioritize outcomes in a health care context.

Authors:  Inger M Janssen; Ansgar Gerhardus; Milly A Schröer-Günther; Fülöp Scheibler
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2014-08-25       Impact factor: 3.377

Review 2.  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 3.  Benefit-risk assessment and reporting in clinical trials of chronic pain treatments: IMMPACT recommendations.

Authors:  Bethea A Kleykamp; Robert H Dworkin; Dennis C Turk; Zubin Bhagwagar; Penney Cowan; Christopher Eccleston; Susan S Ellenberg; Scott R Evans; John T Farrar; Roy L Freeman; Louis P Garrison; Jennifer S Gewandter; Veeraindar Goli; Smriti Iyengar; Alejandro R Jadad; Mark P Jensen; Roderick Junor; Nathaniel P Katz; J Patrick Kesslak; Ernest A Kopecky; Dmitri Lissin; John D Markman; Michael P McDermott; Philip J Mease; Alec B O'Connor; Kushang V Patel; Srinivasa N Raja; Michael C Rowbotham; Cristina Sampaio; Jasvinder A Singh; Ilona Steigerwald; Vibeke Strand; Leslie A Tive; Jeffrey Tobias; Ajay D Wasan; Hilary D Wilson
Journal:  Pain       Date:  2021-09-09       Impact factor: 7.926

4.  Shared decision-making in the selection of outpatient analgesics for older individuals in the emergency department.

Authors:  Cameron G Isaacs; Christine Kistler; Katherine M Hunold; Greg F Pereira; Mara Buchbinder; Mark A Weaver; Samuel A McLean; Timothy F Platts-Mills
Journal:  J Am Geriatr Soc       Date:  2013-04-16       Impact factor: 5.562

Review 5.  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

6.  Patient Preferences for Pain Management in Advanced Cancer: Results from a Discrete Choice Experiment.

Authors:  David M Meads; John L O'Dwyer; Claire T Hulme; Phani Chintakayala; Karen Vinall-Collier; Michael I Bennett
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2017-10       Impact factor: 3.883

7.  Attributes Underlying Non-surgical Treatment Choice for People With Low Back Pain: A Systematic Mixed Studies Review.

Authors:  Thomas G Poder; Marion Beffarat
Journal:  Int J Health Policy Manag       Date:  2021-03-14

8.  Acupuncture or low frequency infrared treatment for low back pain in Chinese patients: a discrete choice experiment.

Authors:  Li-Chia Chen; Li-Jen Cheng; Yan Zhang; Xin He; Roger D Knaggs
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-05-28       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Long-term opioid treatment of chronic nonmalignant pain: unproven efficacy and neglected safety?

Authors:  Igor Kissin
Journal:  J Pain Res       Date:  2013-07-04       Impact factor: 3.133

10.  Effects of acupuncture for cancer pain and quality of life - a case series.

Authors:  Sivarama Prasad Vinjamury; Ju-Tzu Li; Eric Hsiao; Calen Huang; Cheryl Hawk; Judith Miller; Yuhong Huang
Journal:  Chin Med       Date:  2013-07-30       Impact factor: 5.455

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.