Mickael Hiligsmann1, Charlotte Beaudart2, Olivier Bruyère2, Emmanuel Biver3, Jürgen Bauer4, Alfonso J Cruz-Jentoft5, Antonella Gesmundo6, Sabine Goisser4, Francesco Landi7, Médéa Locquet2, Stefania Maggi8, Rene Rizzoli3, Yves Rolland9, Nieves Vaquero5, Cyrus Cooper10, Jean-Yves Reginster11. 1. Department of Health Services Research, CAPHRI Care and Public Health Research Institute, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands. Electronic address: m.hiligsmann@maastrichtuniversity.nl. 2. Department of Public Health, Epidemiology and Health Economics, University of Liège, Liège, Belgium; WHO Collaborating Centre for Public Health Aspects of Musculo-Skeletal Health and Aging, Liège, Belgium. 3. Service of Bone Diseases, Geneva University Hospitals and Faculty of Medicine, University of Geneva, Switzerland. 4. Center for Geriatric Medicine and Network Aging Research (NAR), University of Heidelberg, Germany. 5. Servicio de Geriatría, Hospital Universitario Ramón y Cajal (IRYCIS), Madrid, Spain. 6. Department of Medicine, Rehabilitation Hospital, Motta di Livenza (TV), Italy. 7. Department of Geriatrics,Neurosciences and Orthopedics, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart Rome, Milano, Italy. 8. National Research Council, Neuroscience Institute, Aging Branch, Padua, Italy. 9. Gérontopôle of Toulouse, University of Toulouse III, CHU Purpan, INSERM 1027, Toulouse, France. 10. MRC Lifecourse Epidemiology Unit, University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom; NIHR Musculoskeletal Biomedical Research Unit, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom. 11. Department of Public Health, Epidemiology and Health Economics, University of Liège, Liège, Belgium; WHO Collaborating Centre for Public Health Aspects of Musculo-Skeletal Health and Aging, Liège, Belgium; KSA Chair for Biomarkers of Chronic Diseases, Biochemistry Department, College of Science, King Saud University, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate patients' preferences for sarcopenia outcomes. DESIGN: Discrete-choice experiment (DCE) SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Community-dwelling individuals older than 65 years suffering from sarcopenia recruited in Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and Switzerland, who visited the clinic and were cognitively able to understand and fill out the survey. METHODS: In the DCE survey, participants were repetitively asked to choose which one of the 2 patients suffering from sarcopenia deserves treatment the most. The 2 patients presented different levels of risk for 5 preselected sarcopenia outcomes: quality of life, mobility, domestic activities, fatigue, and falls. The DCE included 12 choice sets. Mixed logit panel model was used to estimate patients' preferences and latent class model was conducted to identify profiles of responses. RESULTS: A total of 216 sarcopenic persons were included for the analysis (68% women; mean age 78 years). All 5 preselected sarcopenia outcomes were shown to be significant. Overall, the most important sarcopenia outcome was mobility (30%), followed by the ability to manage domestic activities (22%), the risk of falls (18%), fatigue (17%), and quality of life (14%). The latent class model identified 2 classes of respondents. In the first class (probability of 56%), participants valued mobility the most (42%), followed by the ability to manage domestic activities (23%) and risk of falls (17%). In the second class, fatigue was the most important outcome (27%) followed by domestic activities (19%) and risk of falls (19%). No statistically significant associations between the latent classes and sociodemographic characteristics were found. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: This study suggests that all 5 preselected outcomes were important for sarcopenic older individuals. Overall, the most important outcomes were mobility and the ability to manage domestic activities, although variations in preferences were observed between respondents. This could help in incorporating patient preferences when designing appropriate solutions for individuals with sarcopenia.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate patients' preferences for sarcopenia outcomes. DESIGN: Discrete-choice experiment (DCE) SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Community-dwelling individuals older than 65 years suffering from sarcopenia recruited in Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and Switzerland, who visited the clinic and were cognitively able to understand and fill out the survey. METHODS: In the DCE survey, participants were repetitively asked to choose which one of the 2 patients suffering from sarcopenia deserves treatment the most. The 2 patients presented different levels of risk for 5 preselected sarcopenia outcomes: quality of life, mobility, domestic activities, fatigue, and falls. The DCE included 12 choice sets. Mixed logit panel model was used to estimate patients' preferences and latent class model was conducted to identify profiles of responses. RESULTS: A total of 216 sarcopenic persons were included for the analysis (68% women; mean age 78 years). All 5 preselected sarcopenia outcomes were shown to be significant. Overall, the most important sarcopenia outcome was mobility (30%), followed by the ability to manage domestic activities (22%), the risk of falls (18%), fatigue (17%), and quality of life (14%). The latent class model identified 2 classes of respondents. In the first class (probability of 56%), participants valued mobility the most (42%), followed by the ability to manage domestic activities (23%) and risk of falls (17%). In the second class, fatigue was the most important outcome (27%) followed by domestic activities (19%) and risk of falls (19%). No statistically significant associations between the latent classes and sociodemographic characteristics were found. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: This study suggests that all 5 preselected outcomes were important for sarcopenic older individuals. Overall, the most important outcomes were mobility and the ability to manage domestic activities, although variations in preferences were observed between respondents. This could help in incorporating patient preferences when designing appropriate solutions for individuals with sarcopenia.
Authors: A Brett Hauber; Juan Marcos González; Catharina G M Groothuis-Oudshoorn; Thomas Prior; Deborah A Marshall; Charles Cunningham; Maarten J IJzerman; John F P Bridges Journal: Value Health Date: 2016-05-12 Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: Charlotte Beaudart; Olivier Bruyère; Alfonso J Cruz-Jentoft; María Nieves Vaquero-Pinto; Médéa Locquet; Jürgen Bauer; Cyrus Cooper; Yves Rolland; Charlotte Dupuy; Francesco Landi; Jean-Yves Reginster; Stefania Maggi; René Rizzoli; Mickaël Hiligsmann Journal: J Am Med Dir Assoc Date: 2019-10-25 Impact factor: 4.669
Authors: Alfonso J Cruz-Jentoft; Jean Pierre Baeyens; Jürgen M Bauer; Yves Boirie; Tommy Cederholm; Francesco Landi; Finbarr C Martin; Jean-Pierre Michel; Yves Rolland; Stéphane M Schneider; Eva Topinková; Maurits Vandewoude; Mauro Zamboni Journal: Age Ageing Date: 2010-04-13 Impact factor: 10.668
Authors: Alfonso J Cruz-Jentoft; Gülistan Bahat; Jürgen Bauer; Yves Boirie; Olivier Bruyère; Tommy Cederholm; Cyrus Cooper; Francesco Landi; Yves Rolland; Avan Aihie Sayer; Stéphane M Schneider; Cornel C Sieber; Eva Topinkova; Maurits Vandewoude; Marjolein Visser; Mauro Zamboni Journal: Age Ageing Date: 2019-01-01 Impact factor: 10.668
Authors: Stephanie A Studenski; Katherine W Peters; Dawn E Alley; Peggy M Cawthon; Robert R McLean; Tamara B Harris; Luigi Ferrucci; Jack M Guralnik; Maren S Fragala; Anne M Kenny; Douglas P Kiel; Stephen B Kritchevsky; Michelle D Shardell; Thuy-Tien L Dam; Maria T Vassileva Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2014-05 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Charlotte Beaudart; Jürgen M Bauer; Francesco Landi; Olivier Bruyère; Jean-Yves Reginster; Mickael Hiligsmann Journal: Aging Clin Exp Res Date: 2021-03-05 Impact factor: 3.636