Patient-Informed Value Elements in Cost-Effectiveness Analyses of Major Depressive Disorder Treatment: A Literature Review and Synthesis

IF 6 2区 医学 Q1 ECONOMICS Value in Health Pub Date : 2025-03-01 Epub Date: 2024-06-07 DOI:10.1016/j.jval.2024.05.017
Julia F. Slejko PhD , T. Joseph Mattingly II PhD , Alexandra Wilson PharmD , Richard Xie PhD , Richard H. Chapman PhD , Alejandro Amill-Rosario PhD , Susan dosReis PhD
{"title":"Patient-Informed Value Elements in Cost-Effectiveness Analyses of Major Depressive Disorder Treatment: A Literature Review and Synthesis","authors":"Julia F. Slejko PhD ,&nbsp;T. Joseph Mattingly II PhD ,&nbsp;Alexandra Wilson PharmD ,&nbsp;Richard Xie PhD ,&nbsp;Richard H. Chapman PhD ,&nbsp;Alejandro Amill-Rosario PhD ,&nbsp;Susan dosReis PhD","doi":"10.1016/j.jval.2024.05.017","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><div>Prior work identified 6 key value elements (attributes of treatment and desired outcomes) for individuals living with major depressive disorder (MDD) in managing their condition: mode of treatment, time to treatment helpfulness, MDD relief, quality of work, interaction with others, and affordability. The objective of our study was to identify whether previous cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) for MDD treatment addressed any of these value elements. A secondary objective was to identify whether any study engaged patients, family members, and caregivers in the model development process.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>We conducted a systematic literature review to identify published model-based CEAs. We compared the elements of the published studies with the MDD patient value elements elicited in prior work to identify gaps and areas for future research.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Of 86 published CEAs, we found that 7 included patient out-of-pocket costs, and 32 included measures of productivity, which were both priorities for individuals with MDD. We found that only 2 studies elicited measures from patients for their model, and 2 studies engaged patients in the modeling process.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Published CEA models for MDD treatment do not regularly include value elements that are a priority for this patient population nor do they include patients in their modeling process. Flexible models that can accommodate elements consistent with patient experience are needed, and a multistakeholder engagement approach would help accomplish this.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":23508,"journal":{"name":"Value in Health","volume":"28 3","pages":"Pages 399-405"},"PeriodicalIF":6.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Value in Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1098301524024045","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/6/7 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives

Prior work identified 6 key value elements (attributes of treatment and desired outcomes) for individuals living with major depressive disorder (MDD) in managing their condition: mode of treatment, time to treatment helpfulness, MDD relief, quality of work, interaction with others, and affordability. The objective of our study was to identify whether previous cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) for MDD treatment addressed any of these value elements. A secondary objective was to identify whether any study engaged patients, family members, and caregivers in the model development process.

Methods

We conducted a systematic literature review to identify published model-based CEAs. We compared the elements of the published studies with the MDD patient value elements elicited in prior work to identify gaps and areas for future research.

Results

Of 86 published CEAs, we found that 7 included patient out-of-pocket costs, and 32 included measures of productivity, which were both priorities for individuals with MDD. We found that only 2 studies elicited measures from patients for their model, and 2 studies engaged patients in the modeling process.

Conclusions

Published CEA models for MDD treatment do not regularly include value elements that are a priority for this patient population nor do they include patients in their modeling process. Flexible models that can accommodate elements consistent with patient experience are needed, and a multistakeholder engagement approach would help accomplish this.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
重度抑郁障碍治疗成本效益分析中的患者知情价值要素:文献回顾与综述》。
目标:先前的研究确定了重度抑郁障碍(MDD)患者在控制病情方面的六个关键价值要素(治疗属性和预期结果):治疗方式、治疗时间、MDD 缓解、工作质量、与他人的互动以及可负担性。我们研究的目的是确定以往的 MDD 治疗成本效益分析 (CEA) 是否涉及到这些价值要素中的任何一个。次要目标是确定是否有研究让患者、家庭成员和护理人员参与到模型开发过程中:我们进行了系统的文献综述,以确定已发表的基于模型的 CEA。我们将已发表研究的要素与之前工作中提出的 MDD 患者价值要素进行了比较,以确定差距和未来研究的领域:在已发表的 86 项 CEA 中,我们发现有 7 项包含了患者的自付费用,32 项包含了生产力衡量标准,而这两项对于 MDD 患者来说都是优先考虑的因素。我们发现,只有两项研究从患者那里获得了模型的衡量标准,还有两项研究让患者参与了建模过程:结论:已发表的 MDD 治疗的 CEA 模型并不经常包含这类患者优先考虑的价值要素,也没有让患者参与建模过程。我们需要灵活的模型,以适应符合患者体验的要素,而多方利益相关者参与的方法将有助于实现这一目标。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Value in Health
Value in Health 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
6.90
自引率
6.70%
发文量
3064
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Value in Health contains original research articles for pharmacoeconomics, health economics, and outcomes research (clinical, economic, and patient-reported outcomes/preference-based research), as well as conceptual and health policy articles that provide valuable information for health care decision-makers as well as the research community. As the official journal of ISPOR, Value in Health provides a forum for researchers, as well as health care decision-makers to translate outcomes research into health care decisions.
期刊最新文献
A Systematic Literature Review of Elicitation Methods for Distributional Preferences in Healthcare Regarding the Concentration and Dispersion of Health Benefits. Author Reply Author Reply Table of Contents Editorial Board
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1