Welmoed K van Deen1,2,3, Dominic Nguyen4, Natalie E Duran4, Ellen Kane4, Martijn G H van Oijen5, Daniel W Hommes4. 1. Division of Digestive Diseases, Center for Inflammatory Bowel Diseases, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA. Welmoed.vanDeen@med.usc.edu. 2. Gehr Family Center for Implementation Science, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, 2020 Zonal Avenue, IRD #323, Los Angeles, CA, 90033, USA. Welmoed.vanDeen@med.usc.edu. 3. Leonard D. Schaeffer Center for Health Policy and Economics, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA. Welmoed.vanDeen@med.usc.edu. 4. Division of Digestive Diseases, Center for Inflammatory Bowel Diseases, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 5. Department of Medical Oncology, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Value-based healthcare is an upcoming field. The core idea is to evaluate care based on achieved outcomes divided by the costs. Unfortunately, the optimal way to evaluate outcomes is ill-defined. In this study, we aim to develop a single, preference based, outcome metric, which can be used to quantify overall health value in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). METHODS: IBD patients filled out a choice-based conjoint (CBC) questionnaire in which patients chose preferable outcome scenarios with different levels of disease control (DC), quality of life (QoL), and productivity (Pr). A CBC analysis was performed to estimate the relative value of DC, QoL, and Pr. A patient-centered composite score was developed which was weighted based on the stated preferences. RESULTS: We included 210 IBD patients. Large differences in stated preferences were observed. Increases from low to intermediate outcome levels were valued more than increases from intermediate to high outcome levels. Overall, QoL was more important to patients than DC or Pr. Individual outcome scores were calculated based on the stated preferences. This score was significantly different from a score not weighted based on patient preferences in patients with active disease. CONCLUSIONS: We showed the feasibility of creating a single outcome metric in IBD which incorporates patients' values using a CBC. Because this metric changes significantly when weighted according to patients' values, we propose that success in healthcare should be measured accordingly.
PURPOSE: Value-based healthcare is an upcoming field. The core idea is to evaluate care based on achieved outcomes divided by the costs. Unfortunately, the optimal way to evaluate outcomes is ill-defined. In this study, we aim to develop a single, preference based, outcome metric, which can be used to quantify overall health value in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). METHODS: IBD patients filled out a choice-based conjoint (CBC) questionnaire in which patients chose preferable outcome scenarios with different levels of disease control (DC), quality of life (QoL), and productivity (Pr). A CBC analysis was performed to estimate the relative value of DC, QoL, and Pr. A patient-centered composite score was developed which was weighted based on the stated preferences. RESULTS: We included 210 IBD patients. Large differences in stated preferences were observed. Increases from low to intermediate outcome levels were valued more than increases from intermediate to high outcome levels. Overall, QoL was more important to patients than DC or Pr. Individual outcome scores were calculated based on the stated preferences. This score was significantly different from a score not weighted based on patient preferences in patients with active disease. CONCLUSIONS: We showed the feasibility of creating a single outcome metric in IBD which incorporates patients' values using a CBC. Because this metric changes significantly when weighted according to patients' values, we propose that success in healthcare should be measured accordingly.
Entities:
Keywords:
Inflammatory bowel diseases; Outcome measurement; Patient preferences; Value equation; Value-based health care
Authors: John F P Bridges; A Brett Hauber; Deborah Marshall; Andrew Lloyd; Lisa A Prosser; Dean A Regier; F Reed Johnson; Josephine Mauskopf Journal: Value Health Date: 2011-04-22 Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: David Cella; William Riley; Arthur Stone; Nan Rothrock; Bryce Reeve; Susan Yount; Dagmar Amtmann; Rita Bode; Daniel Buysse; Seung Choi; Karon Cook; Robert Devellis; Darren DeWalt; James F Fries; Richard Gershon; Elizabeth A Hahn; Jin-Shei Lai; Paul Pilkonis; Dennis Revicki; Matthias Rose; Kevin Weinfurt; Ron Hays Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2010-08-04 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Welmoed K van Deen; Martijn G H van Oijen; Kelly D Myers; Adriana Centeno; William Howard; Jennifer M Choi; Bennett E Roth; Erin M McLaughlin; Daniel Hollander; Belinda Wong-Swanson; Jonathan Sack; Michael K Ong; Christina Y Ha; Eric Esrailian; Daniel W Hommes Journal: Inflamm Bowel Dis Date: 2014-10 Impact factor: 5.325
Authors: Benjamin M Craig; Bryce B Reeve; Paul M Brown; David Cella; Ron D Hays; Joseph Lipscomb; A Simon Pickard; Dennis A Revicki Journal: Value Health Date: 2014-12 Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: Remo Panaccione; A Hillary Steinhart; Brian Bressler; Reena Khanna; John K Marshall; Laura Targownik; Waqqas Afif; Alain Bitton; Mark Borgaonkar; Usha Chauhan; Brendan Halloran; Jennifer Jones; Erin Kennedy; Grigorios I Leontiadis; Edward V Loftus; Jonathan Meddings; Paul Moayyedi; Sanjay Murthy; Sophie Plamondon; Greg Rosenfeld; David Schwartz; Cynthia H Seow; Chadwick Williams; Charles N Bernstein Journal: J Can Assoc Gastroenterol Date: 2018-07-10