Literature DB >> 32011209

Patients' preferences for the treatment of anxiety and depressive disorders: a systematic review of discrete choice experiments.

Maike Tünneßen1, Mickaël Hiligsmann2, Stephanie Stock3, Vera Vennedey3.   

Abstract

Introduction: Matching available mental health services to patients' preferences, as well as is possible, may increase patient satisfaction and help increase adherence to certain treatments. This study systematically reviewed discrete-choice experiments (DCEs) on patients' preferences for treatment of depressive and anxiety disorders and assessed the relative importance of outcome, process and cost attributes to improve the current and future treatment situations.
Methods: A systematic literature review using PubMed, EMBASE and PsychInfo was conducted to retrieve all relevant DCEs published up to 15 April 2019, eliciting patient preferences for treatment of depressive and anxiety disorders. Data were extracted using an extraction sheet, and attributes were classified into outcome, process and cost attributes. The relative importance of each attribute category was then assessed, and studies were evaluated according to their reporting quality, using validated checklists.
Results: A total of 11 studies were identified for qualitative analysis. All studies received an aggregate score of 4 on the five-point PREFS checklist (Purpose, Respondents, Explanation, Findings and Significance). Most attributes were outcome related (52%), followed by process (42%) and cost (6%) attributes. Comparing the attribute categories and summing up the relative importance weights for each category within the studies, process attributes were ranked as most important, followed by cost and outcome attributes.Conclusions: In this systematic review, heterogeneous results were observed regarding the inclusion and framing of different attributes across studies. Overall, patients considered process and cost attributes to be more important than outcome attributes. Outcomes and process are important for patients, and thus clinicians should be particularly aware of this and take patients' preferences into account, although the attribute importance may depend on chosen attributes and related levels.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Depression; I10; I12; anxiety disorder; discrete-choice experiment; mental health; patient preference

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32011209     DOI: 10.1080/13696998.2020.1725022

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Med Econ        ISSN: 1369-6998            Impact factor:   2.448


  6 in total

Review 1.  Methods to Summarize Discrete-Choice Experiments in a Systematic Review: A Scoping Review.

Authors:  Daksh Choudhary; Megan Thomas; Kevin Pacheco-Barrios; Yuan Zhang; Pablo Alonso-Coello; Holger Schünemann; Glen Hazlewood
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2022-07-13       Impact factor: 3.481

2.  Patient Preference for Antiepileptic Drugs Treatment in China: Evidence From the Discrete Choice Experiment.

Authors:  Yingjie Hua; Zhenguo Zhu; Xueying Li; Jiaoni Gong; Siqi Ding; Jiahe Lin; Xinshi Wang; Yanru Du; Niange Xia; Rongyuan Zheng; Huiqin Xu
Journal:  Front Neurol       Date:  2020-12-03       Impact factor: 4.003

3.  Delivery preferences for psychological intervention in cardiac rehabilitation: a pilot discrete choice experiment.

Authors:  Gemma Elizabeth Shields; Stuart Wright; Adrian Wells; Patrick Doherty; Lora Capobianco; Linda Mary Davies
Journal:  Open Heart       Date:  2021-08

4.  Conjoint Analysis: A Research Method to Study Patients' Preferences and Personalize Care.

Authors:  Basem Al-Omari; Joviana Farhat; Mai Ershaid
Journal:  J Pers Med       Date:  2022-02-13

5.  Patients' and Psychologists' Preferences for Feedback Reports on Expected Mental Health Treatment Outcomes: A Discrete-Choice Experiment.

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

6.  Patient-Centered Care for People with Depression and Anxiety: An Integrative Review Protocol.

Authors:  Lara Guedes de Pinho; Tânia Correia; Manuel José Lopes; César Fonseca; Maria do Céu Marques; Francisco Sampaio; Helena Reis do Arco
Journal:  J Pers Med       Date:  2021-05-13
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.