Liana Fraenkel1, Joseph Lim2, Guadalupe Garcia-Tsao2, Valerie Reyna3, Alexander Monto4, John F P Bridges5. 1. VA Connecticut Health Care System, Yale University School of Medicine, 300 Cedar ST, TAC Bldg, RM #525, PO Box 208031, New Haven, CT, USA. liana.fraenkel@yale.edu. 2. VA Connecticut Health Care System, Yale University School of Medicine, 300 Cedar ST, TAC Bldg, RM #525, PO Box 208031, New Haven, CT, USA. 3. Department of Human Development and Psychology, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA. 4. Section of Digestive Diseases, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA. 5. Department of Health Policy and Management, John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Data describing patients' priorities, or main concerns, are essential to inform important decisions in healthcare, including treatment planning, diagnostic testing, and the development of programs to improve access and delivery of care. To date, the majority of studies performed does not account for variability in patients' priorities, and as a consequence may not effectively inform end users. The objective of this study was to examine the value of segmentation analysis as a method to illustrate variability in priorities for treatment of chronic hepatitis C (HCV). METHODS: We elicited patients' main concerns when considering antiviral therapy for HCV using a Best-Worst Scaling experiment (Case 1) with ten objects. Latent class analysis was used to estimate part-worth utilities and the probability that each respondent belongs to each segment. RESULTS: In the aggregate, subjects (N = 162) had three main concerns: (1) not being cured; (2) experiencing a lot of side effects; and (3) developing viral resistance to therapy. Segmentation into two groups demonstrated that both groups prioritized the likelihood of cure and coping with side effects, but that only one group (n = 78) was concerned about developing viral resistance to therapy, while subjects in the second group (n = 84) prioritized being able to keep up with their responsibilities. Further segmentation revealed distinct clusters of patients with unique priorities. CONCLUSIONS: Patients' priorities vary significantly. Preference studies should consider including methods to determine whether distinct clusters of priorities and/or concerns exist in order to accurately inform end users' decision making.
BACKGROUND: Data describing patients' priorities, or main concerns, are essential to inform important decisions in healthcare, including treatment planning, diagnostic testing, and the development of programs to improve access and delivery of care. To date, the majority of studies performed does not account for variability in patients' priorities, and as a consequence may not effectively inform end users. The objective of this study was to examine the value of segmentation analysis as a method to illustrate variability in priorities for treatment of chronic hepatitis C (HCV). METHODS: We elicited patients' main concerns when considering antiviral therapy for HCV using a Best-Worst Scaling experiment (Case 1) with ten objects. Latent class analysis was used to estimate part-worth utilities and the probability that each respondent belongs to each segment. RESULTS: In the aggregate, subjects (N = 162) had three main concerns: (1) not being cured; (2) experiencing a lot of side effects; and (3) developing viral resistance to therapy. Segmentation into two groups demonstrated that both groups prioritized the likelihood of cure and coping with side effects, but that only one group (n = 78) was concerned about developing viral resistance to therapy, while subjects in the second group (n = 84) prioritized being able to keep up with their responsibilities. Further segmentation revealed distinct clusters of patients with unique priorities. CONCLUSIONS: Patients' priorities vary significantly. Preference studies should consider including methods to determine whether distinct clusters of priorities and/or concerns exist in order to accurately inform end users' decision making.
Authors: Y Shiratori; F Imazeki; M Moriyama; M Yano; Y Arakawa; O Yokosuka; T Kuroki; S Nishiguchi; M Sata; G Yamada; S Fujiyama; H Yoshida; M Omata Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2000-04-04 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Yu-Ning Wong; Brian L Egleston; Kush Sachdeva; Naa Eghan; Melanie Pirollo; Tammy K Stump; John Robert Beck; Katrina Armstrong; Jerome Sanford Schwartz; Neal J Meropol Journal: Med Care Date: 2013-09 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Mehdi Najafzadeh; Larry D Lynd; Jennifer C Davis; Stirling Bryan; Aslam Anis; Marco Marra; Carlo A Marra Journal: Genet Med Date: 2012-01-26 Impact factor: 8.822
Authors: Donna M Evon; Carol E Golin; Teodora Stoica; Rachel E Jones; Sarah J Willis; Joseph Galanko; Michael W Fried Journal: Patient Date: 2017-06 Impact factor: 3.883
Authors: Kei Long Cheung; Ben F M Wijnen; Ilene L Hollin; Ellen M Janssen; John F Bridges; Silvia M A A Evers; Mickael Hiligsmann Journal: Pharmacoeconomics Date: 2016-12 Impact factor: 4.981