Divine Ikenwilo1, Sebastian Heidenreich2, Mandy Ryan1, Colette Mankowski3, Jameel Nazir3, Verity Watson1. 1. Health Economics Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Polwarth Building, Foresterhill, Aberdeen, AB25 2ZD, UK. 2. Health Economics Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Polwarth Building, Foresterhill, Aberdeen, AB25 2ZD, UK. sebastian.heidenreich@abdn.ac.uk. 3. Astellas Pharma EMEA, 2000 Hillswood Drive, Chertsey, Surrey, KT16 0RS, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) are widely used to quantify individuals' preferences for healthcare. Guidelines recommend the design of DCEs should be informed by qualitative research. However, only a few studies go beyond guidelines by fully presenting qualitative and quantitative research jointly together in a mixed methods approach (MMA). OBJECTIVES: Using an example study about men's preferences for medical treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS), we demonstrate how qualitative research can complement DCEs to gain a rich understanding of individuals' preferences. METHODS: We were the first to combine online discussion groups (ODGs) with an online DCE. A thematic analysis of the ODGs and a conceptual map provided insights into men's quality of life (QoL) with LUTS and relevant treatment attitudes. This was used to design the DCE. Men's willingness to pay (WTP) for these attributes was estimated. Findings from ODGs and DCE were compared to understand WTP and preference heterogeneity. KEY FINDINGS: Men mostly valued medicine that reduced urgency and night-time frequencies of urination but avoided sexual side effects. We find heterogeneity in the effect of sexual side effects on men's preferences. The ODGs suggest this is because several men may be sexually inactive due to their age, being widowed or having comorbidities. The ODGs also raised concern about men's awareness of LUTS. CONCLUSION: We argue that the insights gained into men's preferences for treatment and how LUTS affects men's QoL could not have been obtained by either the qualitative research or the DCE alone.
BACKGROUND: Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) are widely used to quantify individuals' preferences for healthcare. Guidelines recommend the design of DCEs should be informed by qualitative research. However, only a few studies go beyond guidelines by fully presenting qualitative and quantitative research jointly together in a mixed methods approach (MMA). OBJECTIVES: Using an example study about men's preferences for medical treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS), we demonstrate how qualitative research can complement DCEs to gain a rich understanding of individuals' preferences. METHODS: We were the first to combine online discussion groups (ODGs) with an online DCE. A thematic analysis of the ODGs and a conceptual map provided insights into men's quality of life (QoL) with LUTS and relevant treatment attitudes. This was used to design the DCE. Men's willingness to pay (WTP) for these attributes was estimated. Findings from ODGs and DCE were compared to understand WTP and preference heterogeneity. KEY FINDINGS:Men mostly valued medicine that reduced urgency and night-time frequencies of urination but avoided sexual side effects. We find heterogeneity in the effect of sexual side effects on men's preferences. The ODGs suggest this is because several men may be sexually inactive due to their age, being widowed or having comorbidities. The ODGs also raised concern about men's awareness of LUTS. CONCLUSION: We argue that the insights gained into men's preferences for treatment and how LUTS affects men's QoL could not have been obtained by either the qualitative research or the DCE alone.
Authors: Nikki McCaffrey; Liz Gill; Billingsley Kaambwa; Ian D Cameron; Jan Patterson; Maria Crotty; Julie Ratcliffe Journal: Health Soc Care Community Date: 2015-02-08
Authors: Carrie Llewellyn; Alex Pollard; Alec Miners; Daniel Richardson; Martin Fisher; John Cairns; Helen Smith Journal: Sex Transm Infect Date: 2012-05-24 Impact factor: 3.519
Authors: Alec Miners; Carrie Llewellyn; Alex Pollard; Mylene Lagarde; Daniel Richardson; John Cairns; Martin Fisher; Helen Smith Journal: Sex Transm Infect Date: 2012-06-01 Impact factor: 3.519
Authors: Suzana Karim; Benjamin M Craig; Caroline Vass; Catharina G M Groothuis-Oudshoorn Journal: Pharmacoeconomics Date: 2022-08-12 Impact factor: 4.558
Authors: David A Walsh; Marco Boeri; Lucy Abraham; Jo Atkinson; Andrew G Bushmakin; Joseph C Cappelleri; Brett Hauber; Kathleen Klein; Leo Russo; Lars Viktrup; Dennis Turk Journal: Eur J Pain Date: 2022-01-08 Impact factor: 3.651
Authors: Antonio Alcaraz; David Castro-Díaz; Mauro Gacci; Andrea Salonia; Vincenzo Ficarra; Joaquín Carballido-Rodríguez; Alfredo Rodríguez-Antolín; José Medina-Polo; Jesús M Fernández-Gómez; José M Cózar-Olmo; Santiago Búcar-Terrades; Noemí Pérez-León; Francisco J Brenes-Bermúdez; José M Molero-García; Antonio Fernández-Pro-Ledesma; Michael Herdman; Javier C Angulo; José Manasanch Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2022-06-22 Impact factor: 4.964
Authors: Jaein Seo; Charlie A Smith; Caitlin Thomas; Tommi Tervonen; Asha Hareendran; Janet H Ford; Virginia L Stauffer; Robert A Nicholson; Kevin Harrison Duffy; Antje Tockhorn-Heidenreich Journal: Patient Date: 2021-06-16 Impact factor: 3.883