Nicole K Schatz1, Gregory A Fabiano2, Charles E Cunningham3, Susan dosReis4, Daniel A Waschbusch5, Stephanie Jerome2, Kellina Lupas2, Karen L Morris2. 1. Department of Counseling, School and Educational Psychology, University at Buffalo, State University of New York at Buffalo, 3rd Floor, Diefendorf Hall, 3435 Main Street, Buffalo, NY, 14214, USA. nkschatz@buffalo.edu. 2. Department of Counseling, School and Educational Psychology, University at Buffalo, State University of New York at Buffalo, 3rd Floor, Diefendorf Hall, 3435 Main Street, Buffalo, NY, 14214, USA. 3. Jack Laidlaw Chair in Patient-Centered Health Care, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioural Neurosciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada. 4. Pharmaceutical Health Services Research Department, University of Maryland, Baltimore, MD, USA. 5. Penn State Hershey Medical Group Psychiatry, Penn State Hershey, Hershey, PA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patient preferences are an important topic of study with respect to attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) interventions, as there are multiple treatment choices available, multiple developmental levels to consider, and multiple potential individuals involved in treatment (children, parents, and adults with ADHD). Stated preference methods such as discrete choice experiment (DCE), best-worst scaling (BWS), and other utility value methods such as standard gamble interview (SGI) and time trade-off (TTO) are becoming more common in research addressing preferences for ADHD treatments. A synthesis of this research may facilitate improved patient-centered and family-centered treatment for ADHD. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this review was to synthesize reports across existing DCE, BWS, TTO, and SGI studies to assess which aspects of ADHD treatment are most studied as well as most preferred and influential in treatment decisions. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, PsycINFO. STUDY SELECTION: A total of 41 studies referring to preferences for ADHD treatment were identified through the initial search and contact with researchers. Of these, 13 reported ADHD treatment preference data from a study using DCE, BWS, or SGI methods. No TTO studies were identified that met inclusion criteria. RESULTS: Methods and designs varied considerably across studies. Relatively few studies focused on preferences among children, adolescents, and adults compared with those that focused on the preferences of parents of children with ADHD. The majority of studies focused primarily on medication treatments, with many fewer focused on psychosocial treatments. Some studies indicated that parents of children with ADHD prefer to avoid stimulant medications in favor of behavioral or psychosocial interventions. Others report that parents see medication as a preferred treatment. Treatment outcome is a particularly salient attribute for treatment decisions for many informants. CONCLUSIONS: Potential outcomes of various treatments play a proximal role in patients' and families' decisions for ADHD treatment. Because the majority of studies focus on medication treatments for children with ADHD, more research is necessary to understand preferences related to behavioral and other psychosocial treatments both as stand-alone interventions and used in combination with medication. Additional research is also needed to assess the treatment preferences of adults with ADHD. In general, DCE, BWS, and SGI methods allow measurement of patient preferences in a manner that approximates the uncertainty and trade-offs inherent in real-world treatment decision making and provides valuable information to inform patient-centered and family-centered treatment.
BACKGROUND:Patient preferences are an important topic of study with respect to attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) interventions, as there are multiple treatment choices available, multiple developmental levels to consider, and multiple potential individuals involved in treatment (children, parents, and adults with ADHD). Stated preference methods such as discrete choice experiment (DCE), best-worst scaling (BWS), and other utility value methods such as standard gamble interview (SGI) and time trade-off (TTO) are becoming more common in research addressing preferences for ADHD treatments. A synthesis of this research may facilitate improved patient-centered and family-centered treatment for ADHD. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this review was to synthesize reports across existing DCE, BWS, TTO, and SGI studies to assess which aspects of ADHD treatment are most studied as well as most preferred and influential in treatment decisions. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, PsycINFO. STUDY SELECTION: A total of 41 studies referring to preferences for ADHD treatment were identified through the initial search and contact with researchers. Of these, 13 reported ADHD treatment preference data from a study using DCE, BWS, or SGI methods. No TTO studies were identified that met inclusion criteria. RESULTS: Methods and designs varied considerably across studies. Relatively few studies focused on preferences among children, adolescents, and adults compared with those that focused on the preferences of parents of children with ADHD. The majority of studies focused primarily on medication treatments, with many fewer focused on psychosocial treatments. Some studies indicated that parents of children with ADHD prefer to avoid stimulant medications in favor of behavioral or psychosocial interventions. Others report that parents see medication as a preferred treatment. Treatment outcome is a particularly salient attribute for treatment decisions for many informants. CONCLUSIONS: Potential outcomes of various treatments play a proximal role in patients' and families' decisions for ADHD treatment. Because the majority of studies focus on medication treatments for children with ADHD, more research is necessary to understand preferences related to behavioral and other psychosocial treatments both as stand-alone interventions and used in combination with medication. Additional research is also needed to assess the treatment preferences of adults with ADHD. In general, DCE, BWS, and SGI methods allow measurement of patient preferences in a manner that approximates the uncertainty and trade-offs inherent in real-world treatment decision making and provides valuable information to inform patient-centered and family-centered treatment.
Authors: Mark Wolraich; Lawrence Brown; Ronald T Brown; George DuPaul; Marian Earls; Heidi M Feldman; Theodore G Ganiats; Beth Kaplanek; Bruce Meyer; James Perrin; Karen Pierce; Michael Reiff; Martin T Stein; Susanna Visser Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2011-10-16 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Daniel A Waschbusch; Charles E Cunningham; William E Pelham; Heather L Rimas; Andrew R Greiner; Elizabeth M Gnagy; James Waxmonsky; Gregory A Fabiano; Jessica A Robb; Lisa Burrows-Maclean; Mindy Scime; Martin T Hoffman Journal: J Clin Child Adolesc Psychol Date: 2011
Authors: Catherine C Davis; Milena Claudius; Lawrence A Palinkas; John B Wong; Laurel K Leslie Journal: J Atten Disord Date: 2011-10-05 Impact factor: 3.256
Authors: Brooke S G Molina; Stephen P Hinshaw; James M Swanson; L Eugene Arnold; Benedetto Vitiello; Peter S Jensen; Jeffery N Epstein; Betsy Hoza; Lily Hechtman; Howard B Abikoff; Glen R Elliott; Laurence L Greenhill; Jeffrey H Newcorn; Karen C Wells; Timothy Wigal; Robert D Gibbons; Kwan Hur; Patricia R Houck Journal: J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry Date: 2009-05 Impact factor: 8.829
Authors: Susan dosReis; Xinyi Ng; Emily Frosch; Gloria Reeves; Charles Cunningham; John F P Bridges Journal: Patient Date: 2015-10 Impact factor: 3.883
Authors: Jeremy J Michel; Stephanie Mayne; Robert W Grundmeier; James P Guevara; Nathan J Blum; Thomas J Power; Emily Coffin; Jeffrey M Miller; Alexander G Fiks Journal: Appl Clin Inform Date: 2018-12-19 Impact factor: 2.342
Authors: Xinyi Ng; John F P Bridges; Melissa M Ross; Emily Frosch; Gloria Reeves; Charles E Cunningham; Susan dosReis Journal: Patient Date: 2017-04 Impact factor: 3.883
Authors: Susan dosReis; Alex Park; Xinyi Ng; Emily Frosch; Gloria Reeves; Charles Cunningham; Ellen M Janssen; John F P Bridges Journal: J Child Adolesc Psychopharmacol Date: 2016-12-19 Impact factor: 2.576