Joran Lokkerbol1,2, Julia M van Voorthuijsen1,3, Amber Geomini1,3, Bea Tiemens4,5,6, Annemieke van Straten7, Filip Smit1,7,8, Anneriek Risseeuw9, Anton van Balkom10, Mickaël Hiligsmann3. 1. a Centre of Economic Evaluation, Trimbos Institute (Netherlands Institute of Mental Health) , Utrecht , The Netherlands. 2. b Rob Giel Research Center, University Medical Center Groningen , Groningen , The Netherlands. 3. c Department of Health Services Research , CAPHRI Care and Public Health Research Institute, Maastricht University , Maastricht , The Netherlands. 4. d Behavioural Science Institute, Radboud University Nijmegen , The Netherlands. 5. e Indigo Service Organisation , Utrecht , The Netherlands. 6. f Pro Persona Research , Renkum , The Netherlands. 7. g Department of Clinical-, Neuro- and Developmental Psychology , Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam , The Netherlands. 8. h Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics , Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, VU University Medical Center , Amsterdam , The Netherlands. 9. i Ypsilon , MIND Landelijk Platform GGZ , Amersfoort , The Netherlands. 10. j Department of Psychiatry and Amsterdam Public Health Institute , VU University Medical Center and GGZinGeest , Amsterdam , The Netherlands.
Abstract
AIMS: The aim of this study was to elicit the preference of patients with an anxiety disorder regarding treatment modalities. Understanding patients' preferences could help optimize treatment uptake and adherence to therapeutic interventions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A discrete-choice experiment was used to elicit patients' preferences with regard to four treatment characteristics: waiting time until first treatment, intensity of treatment, face-to-face vs digital treatment, and group size. In 12 choice sets, participants were asked to choose between two treatment alternatives. A random parameters logit model was used to analyse the data. RESULTS: A total of 126 participants, aged 18 years and older, currently or in the previous year in treatment for an anxiety disorder, completed the survey. Respondents preferred short (over long) waiting times, face-to-face (over digital) treatment, individual (over group) treatment and a treatment intensity of one session per week rather than two sessions per week or one session every two weeks. Waiting time and treatment intensity were substantially less important to patients than level of digitalization and group size. Heterogeneity in preference was significant for each attribute, and sub-group analyses revealed this was partly related to education level and age. LIMITATIONS: The convenience sample over-represented the female and younger population, limiting generalizability. Limited information on background characteristics limited the possibilities to explore preference heterogeneity. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated how different treatment components for anxiety disorders affect patients' preferences for those treatments. There is significant variation in treatment preferences, even after accounting for age and education. Incorporating patients' preferences into treatment decisions could potentially lead to improved adherence of treatments for anxiety disorders.
AIMS: The aim of this study was to elicit the preference of patients with an anxiety disorder regarding treatment modalities. Understanding patients' preferences could help optimize treatment uptake and adherence to therapeutic interventions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A discrete-choice experiment was used to elicit patients' preferences with regard to four treatment characteristics: waiting time until first treatment, intensity of treatment, face-to-face vs digital treatment, and group size. In 12 choice sets, participants were asked to choose between two treatment alternatives. A random parameters logit model was used to analyse the data. RESULTS: A total of 126 participants, aged 18 years and older, currently or in the previous year in treatment for an anxiety disorder, completed the survey. Respondents preferred short (over long) waiting times, face-to-face (over digital) treatment, individual (over group) treatment and a treatment intensity of one session per week rather than two sessions per week or one session every two weeks. Waiting time and treatment intensity were substantially less important to patients than level of digitalization and group size. Heterogeneity in preference was significant for each attribute, and sub-group analyses revealed this was partly related to education level and age. LIMITATIONS: The convenience sample over-represented the female and younger population, limiting generalizability. Limited information on background characteristics limited the possibilities to explore preference heterogeneity. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated how different treatment components for anxiety disorders affect patients' preferences for those treatments. There is significant variation in treatment preferences, even after accounting for age and education. Incorporating patients' preferences into treatment decisions could potentially lead to improved adherence of treatments for anxiety disorders.
Authors: Loes Hilhorst; Jip van der Stappen; Joran Lokkerbol; Mickaël Hiligsmann; Anna H Risseeuw; Bea G Tiemens Journal: Adm Policy Ment Health Date: 2022-04-15