Literature DB >> 31541362

Using the Threshold Technique to Elicit Patient Preferences: An Introduction to the Method and an Overview of Existing Empirical Applications.

Brett Hauber1, Joshua Coulter2.   

Abstract

Patient preference information (PPI) is a topic of interest to regulators and industry. One of many known methods for eliciting PPI is the threshold technique (TT). However, empirical studies of the TT differ from each other in many ways and no effort to date has been made to summarize them or the evidence regarding the performance of the method. We sought to describe the TT and summarize the empirical applications of the method. Forty-three studies were reviewed. Most studies estimated the minimum level of benefit required to make a treatment worthwhile, and over half estimated the maximum level of risk patients would accept to achieve a treatment benefit. The evidence demonstrates that the TT can be used to elicit multiple types of thresholds and can be used to explore preference heterogeneity and preference non-linearity. Some evidence suggests that the method may be sensitive to anchoring and shift-framing effects; however, no evidence suggests that the method is more or less sensitive to these potential biases than other stated-preference methods. The TT may be a viable method for eliciting PPI to support regulatory decision-making; however, additional understanding of the performance of this method may be needed. Future research should focus on TT performance compared with other stated-preference methods, the extent to which results predict patient choice, and the ability of the TT to inform individual treatment decisions at the point of healthcare delivery.

Entities:  

Year:  2020        PMID: 31541362     DOI: 10.1007/s40258-019-00521-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Appl Health Econ Health Policy        ISSN: 1175-5652            Impact factor:   2.561


  6 in total

1.  Development of a Patient Preference Survey for Wearable Kidney Replacement Therapy Devices.

Authors:  Jennifer E Flythe; Derek Forfang; Nieltje Gedney; David M White; Caroline Wilkie; Kerri L Cavanaugh; Raymond C Harris; Mark Unruh; Grace Squillaci; Melissa West; Carol Mansfield; Cindy S Soloe; Katherine Treiman; Dallas Wood; Frank P Hurst; Carolyn Y Neuland; Anindita Saha; Murray Sheldon; Michelle E Tarver
Journal:  Kidney360       Date:  2022-05-05

2.  Preference Testing in Medical Devices: Current Framework and Regulatory Gaps.

Authors:  Amy Lewis; Despoina Douka; Angeliki Koukoura; Vasiliki Valla; Amie Smirthwaite; Susanne Holm Faarbaek; Efstathios Vassiliadis
Journal:  Med Devices (Auckl)       Date:  2022-07-06

3.  A Systematic Review of Discrete Choice Experiments in Oncology Treatments.

Authors:  Hannah Collacott; Vikas Soekhai; Caitlin Thomas; Anne Brooks; Ella Brookes; Rachel Lo; Sarah Mulnick; Sebastian Heidenreich
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2021-05-05       Impact factor: 3.883

4.  Patients' and caregivers' maximum acceptable risk of death for non-curative gene therapy to treat Duchenne muscular dystrophy.

Authors:  Holly L Peay; Ryan Fischer; Brennan Mange; Ryan S Paquin; Edward C Smith; Alesia Sadosky; Leo Russo; Valeria Ricotti; Colin Rensch; Carl Morris; Amy Strong Martin; Annie Ganot; Katherine Beaverson; Carol Mansfield
Journal:  Mol Genet Genomic Med       Date:  2021-03-23       Impact factor: 2.183

5.  Patient preference for early onset of efficacy of preventive migraine treatments.

Authors:  Jessica Ailani; Paul Winner; Ann Hartry; Thomas Brevig; Martin Bøg; Anders Blaedel Lassen; Kevin Marsh; Katelyn Cutts; Agathe Le Lay
Journal:  Headache       Date:  2022-02-20       Impact factor: 5.311

6.  Patient preferences for gene therapy in haemophilia: Results from the PAVING threshold technique survey.

Authors:  Eline van Overbeeke; Brett Hauber; Sissel Michelsen; Kathelijne Peerlinck; Catherine Lambert; Cedric Hermans; Phu Quoc Lê; Michel Goldman; Steven Simoens; Isabelle Huys
Journal:  Haemophilia       Date:  2021-09-01       Impact factor: 4.263

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.