Literature DB >> 23290792

Patient preferences for outcomes of depression treatment in Germany: a choice-based conjoint analysis study.

Thomas M Zimmermann1, Johannes Clouth, Michael Elosge, Matthias Heurich, Edith Schneider, Stefan Wilhelm, Anette Wolfrath.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: In general, treatment efficacy in depressed patients is evaluated mainly based on the core symptoms of depression. However, patients might consider different outcomes. This study used choice-based conjoint analysis (CBC) to evaluate patient preferences for depression treatment outcomes.
METHODS: Adult subjects from Germany, currently or previously on antidepressant treatment, were presented with 18 pairs of hypothetical treatment outcome scenarios, differing in eight attributes (2-3 factor levels each): depressed mood, loss of interest and enjoyment, loss of energy/fatigue, sleep disturbance, feelings of guilt, depression-related pain, treatment duration, side effects after 2 weeks. Attributes and factor levels were defined by literature review, expert consultations, and in-depth subject interviews. Data were analyzed using multinomial logit modeling; individual part-worth utilities were estimated using hierarchical Bayes routines.
RESULTS: Two hundred twenty-seven subjects (89.4% currently treated with antidepressants, 30.0% with depression-related pain) completed the survey. They valued the relative importance of outcomes as follows: loss of energy/fatigue 18.5%, side effects after 2 weeks 14.2%, loss of interest and enjoyment 13.5%, depression-related pain 12.0%, sleep disturbance 12.0%, feelings of guilt 11.5%, treatment duration 9.9%, depressed mood 8.5%. LIMITATIONS: Participants were not required to meet ICD-10 or DSM-IV criteria for depression and had heterogeneous disease severity.
CONCLUSIONS: CBC analysis was able to reveal patient preferences for outcomes of depression treatment. Subjects valued the ability to cope with activities of everyday living highest. They considered being free of depression-related pain and side effects more important than being free of depressed mood. These findings should be considered when making treatment decisions.
Copyright © 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23290792     DOI: 10.1016/j.jad.2012.11.062

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Affect Disord        ISSN: 0165-0327            Impact factor:   4.839


  25 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

2.  Rhodiola rosea versus sertraline for major depressive disorder: A randomized placebo-controlled trial.

Authors:  Jun J Mao; Sharon X Xie; Jarcy Zee; Irene Soeller; Qing S Li; Kenneth Rockwell; Jay D Amsterdam
Journal:  Phytomedicine       Date:  2015-02-23       Impact factor: 5.340

3.  Treatment Satisfaction Among Patients Taking Antidepressant Medication.

Authors:  Jesús López-Torres Hidalgo; Yolanda López Gallardo; Ignacio Párraga Martínez; José María Del Campo Del Campo; Alejandro Villena Ferrer; Susana Morena Rayo
Journal:  Community Ment Health J       Date:  2015-04-02

Review 4.  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

5.  [Treatment preferences of elderly patients with mental disorders].

Authors:  F H Boehlen; W Herzog; I Maatouk; K-U Saum; H Brenner; B Wild
Journal:  Z Gerontol Geriatr       Date:  2015-06-02       Impact factor: 1.281

6.  Preferences of psychiatric practitioners for core symptoms of major depressive disorder: a hidden conjoint analysis.

Authors:  Matthias W Riepe; Peter Gritzmann; Andreas Brieden
Journal:  Int J Methods Psychiatr Res       Date:  2016-11-09       Impact factor: 4.035

7.  Using Latent Class Analysis to Model Preference Heterogeneity in Health: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Mo Zhou; Winter Maxwell Thayer; John F P Bridges
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2018-02       Impact factor: 4.981

8.  A Comparison of Methods for Capturing Patient Preferences for Delivery of Mental Health Services to Low-Income Hispanics Engaged in Primary Care.

Authors:  Patricia M Herman; Maia Ingram; Charles E Cunningham; Heather Rimas; Lucy Murrieta; Kenneth Schachter; Jill Guernsey de Zapien; Scott C Carvajal
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2016-08       Impact factor: 3.883

9.  Patient preferences for disease-modifying drugs in multiple sclerosis therapy: a choice-based conjoint analysis.

Authors:  Kathrin S Utz; Jana Hoog; Andreas Wentrup; Sebastian Berg; Alexandra Lämmer; Britta Jainsch; Anne Waschbisch; De-Hyung Lee; Ralf A Linker; Thomas Schenk
Journal:  Ther Adv Neurol Disord       Date:  2014-11       Impact factor: 6.570

10.  Methods for Incorporating Patient Preferences for Treatments of Depression in Community Mental Health Settings.

Authors:  Paul Crits-Christoph; Robert Gallop; Caroline K Diehl; Seohyun Yin; Mary Beth Connolly Gibbons
Journal:  Adm Policy Ment Health       Date:  2017-09
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.