首页 > 最新文献

The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research最新文献

英文 中文
Perceptions and Acceptance of a Prophylactic Vaccine for Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV): A Qualitative Study 对人类免疫缺陷病毒(HIV)预防性疫苗的看法和接受程度:定性研究
Pub Date : 2024-04-06 DOI: 10.1007/s40271-024-00686-7

Abstract

Background

Despite advances in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) prevention methods, such as the advent of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), the number of people with newly acquired HIV remains high, particularly in at-risk groups. A prophylactic HIV vaccine could contribute to reduced disease prevalence and future transmission and address limitations of existing options, such as suboptimal long-term adherence to PrEPs.

Methods

This qualitative study aimed to capture perceptions towards and acceptance of prophylactic HIV vaccination in three adult populations in the United States: the general population, ‘at-risk’ individuals (e.g. men who have sex with men, transgender individuals, gender-nonconforming individuals, and individuals in a sexual relationship with a person living with HIV), and parents/caregivers of children aged 9–17 years. Interviews were conducted with 55 participants to explore key drivers and barriers to HIV vaccine uptake, and a conceptual model was developed.

Results

The sample was diverse; participants were 51% female, aged 20–57 years (mean 37 years), 33% with high school diploma as highest education level, and identified as White (42%), Black or African American (35%), of Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin (22%), or other races/ethnicities (8%) [groupings are not mutually exclusive]. Perceptions were influenced by individual, interpersonal, community, institutional, and structural factors. Overall, 98% of participants thought vaccination would be beneficial in preventing HIV. Key considerations/barriers included perceived susceptibility, i.e. whether participants felt there was a risk of contracting HIV (discussed by 90%); the clinical profile of the vaccine (e.g. the adverse effect profile [98%], and vaccine efficacy [85%], cost [73%] and administration schedule [88%]); and concerns around potential vaccine-induced seropositivity (VISP; 62%). Stigma was not found to be an important barrier, with a general view that vaccination status was personal. Participants in the ‘at-risk’ group were the most likely to accept an HIV vaccine (70%). Unique concerns in the subgroups included how a potential vaccine’s clinical profile compared with PrEP, voiced by those receiving/considering PrEP, and considerations of children’s views on the topic, voiced by parents/caregivers.

Conclusions

Understanding these factors could help develop HIV vaccine research strategies and contribute toward public health messaging to support future HIV vaccination programs.

摘要 背景 尽管人类免疫缺陷病毒(HIV)预防方法取得了进步,例如出现了暴露前预防疗法(PrEP),但新感染 HIV 的人数仍然居高不下,尤其是在高危人群中。预防性艾滋病疫苗有助于减少疾病的流行和未来的传播,并能解决现有方案的局限性,如 PrEPs 的长期依从性不理想。 方法 本定性研究旨在了解美国三个成年人群体对预防性 HIV 疫苗接种的看法和接受程度:普通人群、"高危 "人群(如男男性行为者、变性人、性别不一致者、与 HIV 感染者有性关系者)以及 9-17 岁儿童的父母/监护人。我们对 55 名参与者进行了访谈,以探讨艾滋病疫苗接种的主要驱动因素和障碍,并建立了一个概念模型。 结果 样本具有多样性;51% 的参与者为女性,年龄在 20-57 岁之间(平均 37 岁),33% 的参与者最高学历为高中毕业文凭,并被认定为白人(42%)、黑人或非裔美国人(35%)、西班牙裔、拉美裔或西班牙血统(22%)或其他种族/民族(8%)[分组并不相互排斥]。个人、人际、社区、机构和结构性因素影响了人们的看法。总体而言,98% 的参与者认为接种疫苗有利于预防 HIV。主要考虑因素/障碍包括感知易感性,即参与者是否认为有感染 HIV 的风险(90% 的人讨论过);疫苗的临床概况(如不良反应概况 [98%]、疫苗疗效 [85%]、成本 [73%] 和接种时间 [88%]);以及对潜在的疫苗诱导血清阳性反应 (VISP; 62%) 的担忧。人们普遍认为接种疫苗是个人行为,因此污名化并不是一个重要的障碍。高危 "组的参与者最有可能接受艾滋病毒疫苗(70%)。亚组中的独特关注点包括潜在疫苗的临床概况与 PrEP 的比较(由接受/考虑 PrEP 者提出),以及儿童对该主题的看法(由父母/照顾者提出)。 结论 了解这些因素有助于制定艾滋病疫苗研究策略,并有助于传播公共卫生信息,支持未来的艾滋病疫苗接种计划。
{"title":"Perceptions and Acceptance of a Prophylactic Vaccine for Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV): A Qualitative Study","authors":"","doi":"10.1007/s40271-024-00686-7","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-024-00686-7","url":null,"abstract":"<h3>Abstract</h3> <span> <h3>Background</h3> <p>Despite advances in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) prevention methods, such as the advent of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), the number of people with newly acquired HIV remains high, particularly in at-risk groups. A prophylactic HIV vaccine could contribute to reduced disease prevalence and future transmission and address limitations of existing options, such as suboptimal long-term adherence to PrEPs.</p> </span> <span> <h3>Methods</h3> <p>This qualitative study aimed to capture perceptions towards and acceptance of prophylactic HIV vaccination in three adult populations in the United States: the general population, ‘at-risk’ individuals (e.g. men who have sex with men, transgender individuals, gender-nonconforming individuals, and individuals in a sexual relationship with a person living with HIV), and parents/caregivers of children aged 9–17 years. Interviews were conducted with 55 participants to explore key drivers and barriers to HIV vaccine uptake, and a conceptual model was developed.</p> </span> <span> <h3>Results</h3> <p>The sample was diverse; participants were 51% female, aged 20–57 years (mean 37 years), 33% with high school diploma as highest education level, and identified as White (42%), Black or African American (35%), of Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin (22%), or other races/ethnicities (8%) [groupings are not mutually exclusive]. Perceptions were influenced by individual, interpersonal, community, institutional, and structural factors. Overall, 98% of participants thought vaccination would be beneficial in preventing HIV. Key considerations/barriers included perceived susceptibility, i.e. whether participants felt there was a risk of contracting HIV (discussed by 90%); the clinical profile of the vaccine (e.g. the adverse effect profile [98%], and vaccine efficacy [85%], cost [73%] and administration schedule [88%]); and concerns around potential vaccine-induced seropositivity (VISP; 62%). Stigma was not found to be an important barrier, with a general view that vaccination status was personal. Participants in the ‘at-risk’ group were the most likely to accept an HIV vaccine (70%). Unique concerns in the subgroups included how a potential vaccine’s clinical profile compared with PrEP, voiced by those receiving/considering PrEP, and considerations of children’s views on the topic, voiced by parents/caregivers.</p> </span> <span> <h3>Conclusions</h3> <p>Understanding these factors could help develop HIV vaccine research strategies and contribute toward public health messaging to support future HIV vaccination programs.</p> </span>","PeriodicalId":501651,"journal":{"name":"The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research","volume":"52 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-04-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140590466","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Diabetes Research Matters: A Three-Round Priority-Setting Survey Consultation with Adults Living with Diabetes and Family Members in Australia 糖尿病研究事关重大:与澳大利亚成年糖尿病患者及其家人进行的三轮优先事项确定调查咨询
Pub Date : 2024-04-06 DOI: 10.1007/s40271-024-00688-5

Abstract

Objective

We aimed to identify the health and quality-of-life research priorities of Australians with diabetes or family members.

Methods

Through an iterative, three-step, online survey process we (1) qualitatively generated research topics (long list) in response to one question “What research is needed to support people with diabetes to live a better life?”; (2) determined the most important research questions (short list); and (3) ranked research questions in order of importance (priorities). We aimed to recruit N = 800 participants, with approximate equal representation of diabetes type and family members.

Results

Participants (N = 661) were adults (aged 18+ years) in Australia with a self-reporting diagnosis of diabetes (type 1, n = 302; type 2, n = 204; prior/current gestational, n = 58; less common types, n = 22, or a family member, n = 75). Retention rates for Surveys 2 and 3 were 47% (n = 295) and 50% (n = 316), respectively. From 1549 open-text responses, 25 topics and 125 research questions were identified thematically. Research priorities differed by cohort, resulting in specific lists developed and ranked by each cohort. The top-ranked research question for the type 1 diabetes cohort was “How can diabetes technology be improved …?” and for the type 2 diabetes cohort: “How can insulin resistance be reversed …?”. One question was common to the final lists of all cohorts: “What are the causes or triggers of diabetes?” Within cohorts, the top priorities were perceived as being of similar importance.

Conclusions

The research priorities differ substantially by diabetes type and for family members. These findings should inform funding bodies and researchers, to align future research and its communication with community needs.

摘要 目的 我们旨在确定澳大利亚糖尿病患者或其家庭成员的健康和生活质量研究重点。 方法 我们通过反复进行的三步在线调查过程:(1) 针对 "需要开展哪些研究来帮助糖尿病患者过上更好的生活?"这一问题,定性地提出研究课题(长清单);(2) 确定最重要的研究问题(短清单);(3) 按照重要性(优先顺序)对研究问题进行排序。我们的目标是招募 N = 800 名参与者,其中糖尿病类型和家庭成员的代表性大致相当。 结果 参与者(N = 661)均为澳大利亚成年人(18 岁以上),自我报告诊断患有糖尿病(1 型,n = 302;2 型,n = 204;既往/当前妊娠期,n = 58;不常见类型,n = 22,或家庭成员,n = 75)。调查 2 和 3 的保留率分别为 47%(n = 295)和 50%(n = 316)。从 1549 份开放文本回复中,按主题确定了 25 个主题和 125 个研究问题。不同组群的研究重点各不相同,因此每个组群都制定了具体的清单并进行了排序。1 型糖尿病队列中排名最高的研究问题是 "如何改进糖尿病技术......?",2 型糖尿病队列中排名最高的研究问题是 "如何逆转胰岛素抵抗......?所有组群的最终清单都有一个共同的问题:"糖尿病的病因或诱因是什么?在不同组群中,最优先考虑的问题被认为具有相似的重要性。 结论 不同糖尿病类型和家庭成员的研究重点大不相同。这些发现应为资助机构和研究人员提供信息,使未来的研究及其交流符合社区需求。
{"title":"Diabetes Research Matters: A Three-Round Priority-Setting Survey Consultation with Adults Living with Diabetes and Family Members in Australia","authors":"","doi":"10.1007/s40271-024-00688-5","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-024-00688-5","url":null,"abstract":"<h3>Abstract</h3> <span> <h3>Objective</h3> <p>We aimed to identify the health and quality-of-life research priorities of Australians with diabetes or family members.</p> </span> <span> <h3>Methods</h3> <p>Through an iterative, three-step, online survey process we (1) qualitatively generated research topics (long list) in response to one question “What research is needed to support people with diabetes to live a better life?”; (2) determined the most important research questions (short list); and (3) ranked research questions in order of importance (priorities). We aimed to recruit <em>N</em> = 800 participants, with approximate equal representation of diabetes type and family members.</p> </span> <span> <h3>Results</h3> <p>Participants (<em>N</em> = 661) were adults (aged 18+ years) in Australia with a self-reporting diagnosis of diabetes (type 1, <em>n</em> = 302; type 2, <em>n</em> = 204; prior/current gestational, <em>n</em> = 58; less common types, <em>n</em> = 22, or a family member, <em>n</em> = 75). Retention rates for Surveys 2 and 3 were 47% (<em>n</em> = 295) and 50% (<em>n</em> = 316), respectively. From 1549 open-text responses, 25 topics and 125 research questions were identified thematically. Research priorities differed by cohort, resulting in specific lists developed and ranked by each cohort. The top-ranked research question for the type 1 diabetes cohort was “How can diabetes technology be improved …?” and for the type 2 diabetes cohort: “How can insulin resistance be reversed …?”. One question was common to the final lists of all cohorts: “What are the causes or triggers of diabetes?” Within cohorts, the top priorities were perceived as being of similar importance.</p> </span> <span> <h3>Conclusions</h3> <p>The research priorities differ substantially by diabetes type and for family members. These findings should inform funding bodies and researchers, to align future research and its communication with community needs.</p> </span>","PeriodicalId":501651,"journal":{"name":"The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research","volume":"2017 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-04-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140590918","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Community Preferences for the Care of Older People at the End of Life: How Important is the Disease Context? 社区对临终老年人护理的偏好:疾病背景有多重要?
Pub Date : 2024-03-18 DOI: 10.1007/s40271-024-00675-w
Patricia Kenny, Deborah J. Street, Jane Hall, Meera R. Agar, Jane Phillips

Background

Population preferences for care at the end of life can inform palliative care policy and direction. Research investigating preferences for care at the end of life has focused predominantly on the context of advanced cancer, with relatively little attention to other life-limiting illnesses that are common causes of death.

Objectives

We aimed to investigate preferences for the care of older people at the end of life in three different disease contexts. The purpose was to understand if population preferences for care in the last 3 weeks of life would differ for patients dying from cancer, heart failure or dementia.

Methods

Three discrete choice experiments were conducted in Australia with a general population sample using similar methods but different end-of-life disease contexts. Some attributes were common across the three experiments and others differed to accommodate the specific disease context. Each survey was completed by a different panel sample aged ≥45 years (cancer, n = 1548; dementia, n = 1549; heart failure, n = 1003). Analysis was by separate mixed logit models.

Results

The most important attributes across all three surveys were costs to the patient and family, patient symptoms and informal carer stress. The probability of choosing an alternative was lowest (0.18–0.29) when any one of these attributes was at the least favourable level, holding other attributes constant across alternatives. The cancer survey explored symptoms more specifically and found patient anxiety with a higher relative importance score than the symptom attribute of pain. Dementia was the only context where most respondents preferred to not have a medical intervention to prolong life; the probability of choosing an alternative with a feeding tube was 0.40 (95% confidence interval 0.36–0.43).

Conclusions

This study suggests a need for affordable services that focus on improving patient and carer well-being irrespective of the location of care, and this message is consistent across different disease contexts, including cancer, heart failure and dementia. It also suggests some different considerations in the context of people dying from dementia where medical intervention to prolong life was less desirable.

背景人群对临终关怀的偏好可以为姑息关怀政策和方向提供参考。对生命末期护理偏好的调查研究主要集中在晚期癌症的情况下,而对作为常见死因的其他限制生命的疾病的关注相对较少。方法我们在澳大利亚对普通人群样本进行了三次离散选择实验,采用的方法相似,但临终疾病的情况不同。三个实验中的某些属性是相同的,而其他属性则因具体疾病而异。每项调查都由年龄≥45 岁的不同小组样本完成(癌症,n = 1548;痴呆症,n = 1549;心力衰竭,n = 1003)。结果在所有三项调查中,最重要的属性是患者和家庭的费用、患者症状和非正式护理人员的压力。在其他属性不变的情况下,当其中任何一个属性处于最不利的水平时,选择替代方案的概率最低(0.18-0.29)。癌症调查对症状进行了更具体的探讨,发现患者焦虑的相对重要性得分高于疼痛这一症状属性。痴呆症是唯一一种大多数受访者倾向于不采取医疗干预措施来延长生命的疾病;选择带有喂食管的替代方案的概率为 0.40(95% 置信区间为 0.36-0.43)。这项研究还表明,对于因痴呆症而死亡的患者,需要考虑一些不同的因素,因为他们不太希望通过医疗干预来延长生命。
{"title":"Community Preferences for the Care of Older People at the End of Life: How Important is the Disease Context?","authors":"Patricia Kenny, Deborah J. Street, Jane Hall, Meera R. Agar, Jane Phillips","doi":"10.1007/s40271-024-00675-w","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-024-00675-w","url":null,"abstract":"<h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Background</h3><p>Population preferences for care at the end of life can inform palliative care policy and direction. Research investigating preferences for care at the end of life has focused predominantly on the context of advanced cancer, with relatively little attention to other life-limiting illnesses that are common causes of death.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Objectives</h3><p>We aimed to investigate preferences for the care of older people at the end of life in three different disease contexts. The purpose was to understand if population preferences for care in the last 3 weeks of life would differ for patients dying from cancer, heart failure or dementia.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Methods</h3><p>Three discrete choice experiments were conducted in Australia with a general population sample using similar methods but different end-of-life disease contexts. Some attributes were common across the three experiments and others differed to accommodate the specific disease context. Each survey was completed by a different panel sample aged ≥45 years (cancer, <i>n</i> = 1548; dementia, <i>n</i> = 1549; heart failure, <i>n</i> = 1003). Analysis was by separate mixed logit models.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Results</h3><p>The most important attributes across all three surveys were costs to the patient and family, patient symptoms and informal carer stress. The probability of choosing an alternative was lowest (0.18–0.29) when any one of these attributes was at the least favourable level, holding other attributes constant across alternatives. The cancer survey explored symptoms more specifically and found patient anxiety with a higher relative importance score than the symptom attribute of pain. Dementia was the only context where most respondents preferred to not have a medical intervention to prolong life; the probability of choosing an alternative with a feeding tube was 0.40 (95% confidence interval 0.36–0.43).</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Conclusions</h3><p>This study suggests a need for affordable services that focus on improving patient and carer well-being irrespective of the location of care, and this message is consistent across different disease contexts, including cancer, heart failure and dementia. It also suggests some different considerations in the context of people dying from dementia where medical intervention to prolong life was less desirable.</p>","PeriodicalId":501651,"journal":{"name":"The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research","volume":"96 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-03-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140146536","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Research Priorities to Increase Confidence in and Acceptance of Health Preference Research: What Questions Should be Prioritized Now? 提高对健康偏好研究的信心和接受度的研究重点:现在应优先考虑哪些问题?
Pub Date : 2023-12-16 DOI: 10.1007/s40271-023-00650-x
Rachael L. DiSantostefano, Ian P. Smith, Marie Falahee, Aura Cecilia Jiménez-Moreno, Serena Oliveri, Jorien Veldwijk, G. Ardine de Wit, Ellen M. Janssen, Conny Berlin, Catharina G. M. Groothuis-Oudshoorn

Background and Objective

There has been an increase in the study and use of stated-preference methods to inform medicine development decisions. The objective of this study was to identify prioritized topics and questions relating to health preferences based on the perspective of members of the preference research community.

Methods

Preference research stakeholders from industry, academia, consultancy, health technology assessment/regulatory, and patient organizations were recruited using professional networks and preference-targeted e-mail listservs and surveyed about their perspectives on 19 topics and questions for future studies that would increase acceptance of preference methods and their results by decision makers. The online survey consisted of an initial importance prioritization task, a best-worst scaling case 1 instrument, and open-ended questions. Rating counts were used for analysis. The best-worst scaling used a balanced incomplete block design.

Results

One hundred and one participants responded to the survey invitation with 66 completing the best-worst scaling. The most important research topics related to the synthesis of preferences across studies, transferability across populations or related diseases, and method topics including comparison of methods and non-discrete choice experiment methods. Prioritization differences were found between respondents whose primary affiliation was academia versus other stakeholders. Academic researchers prioritized methodological/less studied topics; other stakeholders prioritized applied research topics relating to consistency of practice.

Conclusions

As the field of health preference research grows, there is a need to revisit and communicate previous work on preference selection and study design to ensure that new stakeholders are aware of this work and to update these works where necessary. These findings might encourage discussion and alignment among different stakeholders who might hold different research priorities. Research on the application of previous preference research to new contexts will also help increase the acceptance of health preference information by decision makers.

背景和目的:研究和使用陈述偏好方法为药品开发决策提供信息的情况越来越多。本研究的目的是根据偏好研究团体成员的观点,确定与健康偏好相关的优先主题和问题。方法通过专业网络和以偏好为目标的电子邮件列表服务器招募来自工业界、学术界、咨询公司、健康技术评估/监管机构和患者组织的偏好研究利益相关者,并调查他们对未来研究的 19 个主题和问题的观点,以提高决策者对偏好方法及其结果的接受度。在线调查包括初始重要性优先级排序任务、最佳-最差缩放案例 1 工具和开放式问题。评分计数用于分析。最佳-最差评分采用平衡不完全区组设计。结果 101 名参与者回复了调查邀请,其中 66 人完成了最佳-最差评分。最重要的研究课题涉及不同研究间偏好的综合、不同人群或相关疾病间的可转移性,以及包括方法比较和非离散选择实验方法在内的方法课题。主要隶属于学术界的受访者与其他利益相关者在优先排序上存在差异。结论随着健康偏好研究领域的发展,有必要重新审视和交流以前关于偏好选择和研究设计的工作,以确保新的利益相关者了解这些工作,并在必要时更新这些工作。这些研究结果可能会鼓励持有不同研究重点的利益相关者进行讨论和协调。研究如何将以前的偏好研究应用于新的环境,也将有助于提高决策者对健康偏好信息的接受程度。
{"title":"Research Priorities to Increase Confidence in and Acceptance of Health Preference Research: What Questions Should be Prioritized Now?","authors":"Rachael L. DiSantostefano, Ian P. Smith, Marie Falahee, Aura Cecilia Jiménez-Moreno, Serena Oliveri, Jorien Veldwijk, G. Ardine de Wit, Ellen M. Janssen, Conny Berlin, Catharina G. M. Groothuis-Oudshoorn","doi":"10.1007/s40271-023-00650-x","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-023-00650-x","url":null,"abstract":"<h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Background and Objective</h3><p>There has been an increase in the study and use of stated-preference methods to inform medicine development decisions. The objective of this study was to identify prioritized topics and questions relating to health preferences based on the perspective of members of the preference research community.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Methods</h3><p>Preference research stakeholders from industry, academia, consultancy, health technology assessment/regulatory, and patient organizations were recruited using professional networks and preference-targeted e-mail listservs and surveyed about their perspectives on 19 topics and questions for future studies that would increase acceptance of preference methods and their results by decision makers. The online survey consisted of an initial importance prioritization task, a best-worst scaling case 1 instrument, and open-ended questions. Rating counts were used for analysis. The best-worst scaling used a balanced incomplete block design.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Results</h3><p>One hundred and one participants responded to the survey invitation with 66 completing the best-worst scaling. The most important research topics related to the synthesis of preferences across studies, transferability across populations or related diseases, and method topics including comparison of methods and non-discrete choice experiment methods. Prioritization differences were found between respondents whose primary affiliation was academia versus other stakeholders. Academic researchers prioritized methodological/less studied topics; other stakeholders prioritized applied research topics relating to consistency of practice.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Conclusions</h3><p>As the field of health preference research grows, there is a need to revisit and communicate previous work on preference selection and study design to ensure that new stakeholders are aware of this work and to update these works where necessary. These findings might encourage discussion and alignment among different stakeholders who might hold different research priorities. Research on the application of previous preference research to new contexts will also help increase the acceptance of health preference information by decision makers.</p>","PeriodicalId":501651,"journal":{"name":"The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research","volume":"22 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-12-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138681085","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Preferences of Patients with Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis for Intrathecal Drug Delivery: Choosing between an Implanted Drug-Delivery Device and Therapeutic Lumbar Puncture 肌萎缩侧索硬化症患者对鞘内给药的偏好:在植入式给药装置和治疗性腰椎穿刺之间做出选择
Pub Date : 2023-12-14 DOI: 10.1007/s40271-023-00665-4
Jaein Seo, Sandeep Saurkar, Gabriela S. Fernandez, Anup Das, Stephen A. Goutman, Sebastian Heidenreich

Background

Novel intrathecal treatments for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) may require delivery using lumbar puncture (LP). Implanted drug-delivery devices (IDDDs) could be an alternative but little is known about patients’ preferences for intrathecal drug-delivery methods.

Objective

We aimed to elicit preferences of patients with ALS for routine LP and IDDD use.

Methods

A discrete choice experiment (DCE) and a threshold technique (TT) exercise were conducted online among patients with ALS in the US and Europe. In the DCE, patients made trade-offs between administration attributes. Attributes were identified from qualitative interviews. The TT elicited maximum acceptable risks (MARs) of complications from device implantation surgery. DCE data were analyzed using mixed logit to quantify relative attribute importance (RAI) as the maximum contribution of each attribute to a preference, and to estimate MARs of device failure. TT data were analyzed using interval regression. Four scenarios of LP and IDDD were compared.

Results

Participants (N = 295) had a mean age of 57.7 years; most (74.2%) were diagnosed < 3 years ago. Preferences were affected by device failure risk (RAI 28.6%), administration frequency (26.4%), administration risk (19.7%), overall duration (17.8%), and appointment location (7.5%). Patients accepted a 5.6% device failure risk to reduce overall duration from 2 h to 30 min and a 3.6% risk for administration in a local clinic instead of a hospital. The average MAR of complications from implantation surgery was 29%. Patients preferred IDDD over LP in three of four scenarios.

Conclusion

Patients considered an IDDD as a valuable alternative to LP in multiple clinical settings.

背景肌萎缩侧索硬化症(ALS)的新型鞘内治疗可能需要使用腰椎穿刺(LP)给药。植入式给药装置(IDDD)可能是一种替代方法,但人们对患者对鞘内给药方法的偏好知之甚少。方法 在美国和欧洲的 ALS 患者中在线开展了离散选择实验(DCE)和阈值技术(TT)练习。在离散选择实验中,患者在管理属性之间进行权衡。这些属性是通过定性访谈确定的。TT 得出了装置植入手术并发症的最大可接受风险 (MAR)。DCE 数据采用混合对数法进行分析,将相对属性重要性 (RAI) 量化为每个属性对偏好的最大贡献,并估算装置故障的最大可接受风险。TT 数据采用区间回归法进行分析。结果参与者(N = 295)的平均年龄为 57.7 岁;大多数(74.2%)是在 3 年前确诊的。偏好受设备故障风险(RAI 28.6%)、给药频率(26.4%)、给药风险(19.7%)、总体持续时间(17.8%)和预约地点(7.5%)的影响。患者接受了 5.6% 的设备故障风险,以将总体持续时间从 2 小时缩短至 30 分钟,并接受了 3.6% 的在当地诊所而非医院用药的风险。植入手术并发症的平均发生率为 29%。在四种情况中的三种情况下,患者更倾向于使用 IDDD 而不是 LP。
{"title":"Preferences of Patients with Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis for Intrathecal Drug Delivery: Choosing between an Implanted Drug-Delivery Device and Therapeutic Lumbar Puncture","authors":"Jaein Seo, Sandeep Saurkar, Gabriela S. Fernandez, Anup Das, Stephen A. Goutman, Sebastian Heidenreich","doi":"10.1007/s40271-023-00665-4","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-023-00665-4","url":null,"abstract":"<h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Background</h3><p>Novel intrathecal treatments for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) may require delivery using lumbar puncture (LP). Implanted drug-delivery devices (IDDDs) could be an alternative but little is known about patients’ preferences for intrathecal drug-delivery methods.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Objective</h3><p>We aimed to elicit preferences of patients with ALS for routine LP and IDDD use.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Methods</h3><p>A discrete choice experiment (DCE) and a threshold technique (TT) exercise were conducted online among patients with ALS in the US and Europe. In the DCE, patients made trade-offs between administration attributes. Attributes were identified from qualitative interviews. The TT elicited maximum acceptable risks (MARs) of complications from device implantation surgery. DCE data were analyzed using mixed logit to quantify relative attribute importance (RAI) as the maximum contribution of each attribute to a preference, and to estimate MARs of device failure. TT data were analyzed using interval regression. Four scenarios of LP and IDDD were compared.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Results</h3><p>Participants (<i>N</i> = 295) had a mean age of 57.7 years; most (74.2%) were diagnosed &lt; 3 years ago. Preferences were affected by device failure risk (RAI 28.6%), administration frequency (26.4%), administration risk (19.7%), overall duration (17.8%), and appointment location (7.5%). Patients accepted a 5.6% device failure risk to reduce overall duration from 2 h to 30 min and a 3.6% risk for administration in a local clinic instead of a hospital. The average MAR of complications from implantation surgery was 29%. Patients preferred IDDD over LP in three of four scenarios.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Conclusion</h3><p>Patients considered an IDDD as a valuable alternative to LP in multiple clinical settings.</p>","PeriodicalId":501651,"journal":{"name":"The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research","volume":"10 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-12-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138681277","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Patient Preferences for Pharmacy Services: A Systematic Review of Studies Based on Discrete Choice Experiments 患者对药房服务的偏好:基于离散选择实验的研究系统回顾
Pub Date : 2023-12-13 DOI: 10.1007/s40271-023-00652-9
Margaux Riboulet, Anne-Laure Clairet, Mohamed Bennani, Virginie Nerich

Background and Objective

In recent years, the mission of pharmacists has evolved and the model of the caregiver–patient relationship has been challenged by a new patient-centered approach. A challenge to providing personalized care is the assessment of patient preferences. We aimed to systematically identify published discrete choice experiments related to patient preferences for pharmacy services and to assess the quality of the selected articles.

Methods

A systematic review of the literature was conducted in two databases (PubMed and Embase, until March 2023) according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) recommendations. The quality of the selected articles was assessed according to the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research conjoint analysis checklist.

Results

Among the 421 articles identified, 16 published studies were included and analyzed. They were mostly published in pharmaceutical (n = 6), economic (n = 4), and public health (n = 4) journals. Only two articles concerned the field of hospital pharmacy. Only five presented the specific pharmacy service studied: filling of prescriptions, management of symptoms, treatment delivery, and components of pharmacist counseling. Five articles focused on pharmacy services related to a specific disease. None fully fulfilled the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research checklist, only partially fulfilled.

Conclusions

According to the identified studies, cost, time, logistics (organizational criteria), and pharmacists’ courtesy and skills were consistently cited as factors influencing patient preferences for pharmacy services. The disclosure of patient preferences is a complex and under-researched topic, especially in the field of pharmacy, but interest is growing. As the mission of pharmacists evolves to bring them closer to patients, the better understanding of patient preferences in pharmacy services will allow for better targeting and better integration of patient profiles in patient management.

背景与目的近年来,药师的使命发生了变化,以患者为中心的护理关系模式受到了挑战。提供个性化护理的一个挑战是评估患者的偏好。我们的目的是系统地识别已发表的与患者对药房服务偏好相关的离散选择实验,并评估所选文章的质量。方法根据系统评价和荟萃分析(PRISMA)推荐的首选报告项目,在两个数据库(PubMed和Embase,截止到2023年3月)中对文献进行系统评价。所选文章的质量根据国际药物经济学与结果研究学会联合分析清单进行评估。结果在421篇文献中,纳入并分析了16篇已发表的研究。它们主要发表在药学(n = 6)、经济学(n = 4)和公共卫生(n = 4)期刊上。只有两篇文章涉及医院药学领域。只有五个提出了具体的药房服务研究:处方的填写,症状的管理,治疗交付,和药剂师咨询的组成部分。五篇文章集中于与特定疾病相关的药房服务。没有一个完全符合国际药物经济学和结果研究学会的检查表,只有部分符合。结论根据已确定的研究,成本、时间、物流(组织标准)和药剂师的礼貌和技能一直被认为是影响患者对药房服务偏好的因素。患者偏好的披露是一个复杂且研究不足的话题,特别是在药学领域,但兴趣正在增长。随着药剂师的使命不断发展,使他们更接近患者,更好地了解患者对药房服务的偏好,将有助于更好地定位和更好地整合患者管理中的患者资料。
{"title":"Patient Preferences for Pharmacy Services: A Systematic Review of Studies Based on Discrete Choice Experiments","authors":"Margaux Riboulet, Anne-Laure Clairet, Mohamed Bennani, Virginie Nerich","doi":"10.1007/s40271-023-00652-9","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-023-00652-9","url":null,"abstract":"<h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Background and Objective</h3><p>In recent years, the mission of pharmacists has evolved and the model of the caregiver–patient relationship has been challenged by a new patient-centered approach. A challenge to providing personalized care is the assessment of patient preferences. We aimed to systematically identify published discrete choice experiments related to patient preferences for pharmacy services and to assess the quality of the selected articles.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Methods</h3><p>A systematic review of the literature was conducted in two databases (PubMed and Embase, until March 2023) according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) recommendations. The quality of the selected articles was assessed according to the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research conjoint analysis checklist.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Results</h3><p>Among the 421 articles identified, 16 published studies were included and analyzed. They were mostly published in pharmaceutical (<i>n</i> = 6), economic (<i>n</i> = 4), and public health (<i>n</i> = 4) journals. Only two articles concerned the field of hospital pharmacy. Only five presented the specific pharmacy service studied: filling of prescriptions, management of symptoms, treatment delivery, and components of pharmacist counseling. Five articles focused on pharmacy services related to a specific disease. None fully fulfilled the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research checklist, only partially fulfilled.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Conclusions</h3><p>According to the identified studies, cost, time, logistics (organizational criteria), and pharmacists’ courtesy and skills were consistently cited as factors influencing patient preferences for pharmacy services. The disclosure of patient preferences is a complex and under-researched topic, especially in the field of pharmacy, but interest is growing. As the mission of pharmacists evolves to bring them closer to patients, the better understanding of patient preferences in pharmacy services will allow for better targeting and better integration of patient profiles in patient management.</p>","PeriodicalId":501651,"journal":{"name":"The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research","volume":"10 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-12-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138627784","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
A Review of the Use of EQ-5D for Clinical Outcome Assessment in Health Technology Assessment, Regulatory Claims, and Published Literature 在健康技术评估、监管要求和已发表文献中使用 EQ-5D 进行临床结果评估的综述
Pub Date : 2023-12-12 DOI: 10.1007/s40271-023-00662-7
Caroline Shaw, Louise Longworth, Bryan Bennett, Louise McEntee-Richardson, James W. Shaw

The aim is to identify the extent to which EQ-5D is used as a clinical outcome assessment (COA) endpoint in a non-economic context in health technology assessment (HTA) decisions, regulatory labelling claims and published literature. Drug technology appraisals (TAs) published by HTA agencies in England, France, Germany and the USA between 2019 and 2021 were identified. Product labelling for drugs approved by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) between 2016 and 2021 were also identified. A systematic literature review (SLR) was also performed. Documents reporting EQ-5D in the context of economic evaluation only were excluded. EQ-5D data were reported for COA in 195 of 1072 (18%) published TAs, with the majority reported for Germany (n = 138). The EQ-5D visual analogue scale (EQ-VAS) was reported most frequently, in 68% of all TAs, and accounted for 100% of Institut für Qualität und Wirtschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen (IQWiG) and 94% of Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss (G-BA) TAs. In total, 320 drugs were approved or reviewed by the EMA and 735 by the FDA. Of these, 15 reported EQ-5D data from the EMA and 35 from the FDA; however, all EQ-5D data submitted to the FDA were reported in supporting documentation. Reporting of both EQ-5D index and EQ-VAS was most frequent, occurring in 32% of all documents. For the SLR, 329 of 4248 (8%) retrieved records were included. Reporting of both EQ-5D index and EQ-VAS was most frequent, occurring in 36% of studies. Clinical evaluation of recent drug approvals, based on regulatory, HTA and systematic literature reviews, demonstrated limited use of EQ-5D outside the context of economic evaluations. This may be due to the likelihood that the EQ-5D may lack sensitivity to detect improvement in conditions with small expected therapeutic benefit, or because the EQ-5D is not considered an adequate COA tool for clinical evaluation of treatment benefit. EQ-5D, as a COA, was more likely to be used in clinical evaluation of cancer drugs than drugs for treatment in any other disease category. HTA bodies were more likely to use the EQ-5D for COA, especially in Germany.

本研究旨在确定在健康技术评估(HTA)决策、监管标签声明和已发表文献中,EQ-5D 在非经济背景下作为临床结果评估(COA)终点的使用程度。本研究确定了英国、法国、德国和美国的 HTA 机构在 2019 年至 2021 年期间发布的药物技术评估 (TA)。此外,还确定了欧洲药品管理局 (EMA) 和美国食品和药物管理局 (FDA) 在 2016 年至 2021 年期间批准的药物产品标签。此外,还进行了系统文献综述(SLR)。排除了仅在经济评估背景下报告 EQ-5D 的文献。在已发表的 1072 篇 TA 中,195 篇(18%)报告了 COA 的 EQ-5D 数据,其中大部分报告的是德国的数据(n = 138)。EQ-5D视觉模拟量表(EQ-VAS)报告最多,占所有TA的68%,在Institut für Qualität und Wirtschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen (IQWiG)和Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss (G-BA)的TA中分别占100%和94%。共有 320 种药物获得了欧洲药品管理局(EMA)的批准或审查,735 种药物获得了美国食品和药物管理局(FDA)的批准或审查。其中,15 种药物从 EMA 报告了 EQ-5D 数据,35 种药物从 FDA 报告了 EQ-5D 数据;不过,提交给 FDA 的所有 EQ-5D 数据均在证明文件中报告。同时报告 EQ-5D 指数和 EQ-VAS 的情况最多,占所有文件的 32%。对于 SLR,4248 份检索记录中有 329 份(8%)被纳入。同时报告 EQ-5D 指数和 EQ-VAS 的情况最多,占所有研究的 36%。根据监管、HTA 和系统文献综述对近期批准的药物进行的临床评估显示,在经济评估之外,EQ-5D 的使用非常有限。这可能是由于 EQ-5D 可能缺乏灵敏度,无法发现预期治疗效果较小的病情改善情况,也可能是由于 EQ-5D 被认为不是临床评估治疗效果的适当 COA 工具。EQ-5D作为一种COA,更有可能用于癌症药物的临床评估,而非其他疾病类别的治疗药物。HTA 机构更倾向于使用 EQ-5D 进行 COA,尤其是在德国。
{"title":"A Review of the Use of EQ-5D for Clinical Outcome Assessment in Health Technology Assessment, Regulatory Claims, and Published Literature","authors":"Caroline Shaw, Louise Longworth, Bryan Bennett, Louise McEntee-Richardson, James W. Shaw","doi":"10.1007/s40271-023-00662-7","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-023-00662-7","url":null,"abstract":"<p>The aim is to identify the extent to which EQ-5D is used as a clinical outcome assessment (COA) endpoint in a non-economic context in health technology assessment (HTA) decisions, regulatory labelling claims and published literature. Drug technology appraisals (TAs) published by HTA agencies in England, France, Germany and the USA between 2019 and 2021 were identified. Product labelling for drugs approved by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) between 2016 and 2021 were also identified. A systematic literature review (SLR) was also performed. Documents reporting EQ-5D in the context of economic evaluation only were excluded. EQ-5D data were reported for COA in 195 of 1072 (18%) published TAs, with the majority reported for Germany (<i>n</i> = 138). The EQ-5D visual analogue scale (EQ-VAS) was reported most frequently, in 68% of all TAs, and accounted for 100% of Institut für Qualität und Wirtschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen (IQWiG) and 94% of Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss (G-BA) TAs. In total, 320 drugs were approved or reviewed by the EMA and 735 by the FDA. Of these, 15 reported EQ-5D data from the EMA and 35 from the FDA; however, all EQ-5D data submitted to the FDA were reported in supporting documentation. Reporting of both EQ-5D index and EQ-VAS was most frequent, occurring in 32% of all documents. For the SLR, 329 of 4248 (8%) retrieved records were included. Reporting of both EQ-5D index and EQ-VAS was most frequent, occurring in 36% of studies. Clinical evaluation of recent drug approvals, based on regulatory, HTA and systematic literature reviews, demonstrated limited use of EQ-5D outside the context of economic evaluations. This may be due to the likelihood that the EQ-5D may lack sensitivity to detect improvement in conditions with small expected therapeutic benefit, or because the EQ-5D is not considered an adequate COA tool for clinical evaluation of treatment benefit. EQ-5D, as a COA, was more likely to be used in clinical evaluation of cancer drugs than drugs for treatment in any other disease category. HTA bodies were more likely to use the EQ-5D for COA, especially in Germany.</p>","PeriodicalId":501651,"journal":{"name":"The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research","volume":"17 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-12-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138573078","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Current Practices and Challenges When Submitting Patient Experience Data for Regulatory Decisions by the US Food and Drug Administration: An Industry Survey 美国食品和药物管理局为监管决策提交患者体验数据时的当前做法和挑战:行业调查
Pub Date : 2023-12-12 DOI: 10.1007/s40271-023-00653-8
Cathy Anne Pinto, Tommi Tervonen, Cecilia Jimenez-Moreno, Bennett Levitan, Montse Soriano Gabarró, Cynthia Girman, Josephine M. Norquist, Brett Hauber

Objectives

To understand industry practices and challenges when submitting patient experience data (PED) for regulatory decisions by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

Methods

A two-part online survey related to collection, submission, and use of PED by FDA in regulatory decision-making (part 1) and a best-worst exercise for prioritizing potential PED initiatives (part 2) was completed by industry and contract research organization (CRO) members with ≥ 2 years of recent experience with patient-reported outcome (PRO), natural history study (NHS), or patient preference (PP) data; and direct experience with FDA filings including PED.

Results

A total of 50 eligible respondents (84% industry) completed part 1 of the survey, among which 46 completed part 2. Respondents mostly had PRO (86%) and PP (50%) experience. All indicated that FDA meetings should have a standing agenda item to discuss PED. Most (78%) reported meetings should occur before pivotal trials. A common challenge was justifying inclusion without knowing if and how data will be used. Most agreed that FDA and industry should co-develop the PED table in the FDA clinical review (74%), and the table should report reason(s) for not using PED (96%) in regulatory decision-making. Most important efforts to advance PED use in decision-making were a dedicated meeting pathway and expanded FDA guidance (51% each).

Conclusions

FDA has policy targets expanding PED use, but challenges remain regarding pathways for PED submission and transparency in regulatory decision-making. Alignment on the use of existing meeting opportunities to discuss PED, co-development of the PED table, and expanded guidance are encouraged.

目标了解业界在提交患者体验数据 (PED) 供美国食品药品管理局 (FDA) 进行监管决策时的做法和面临的挑战。方法 针对 FDA 在监管决策中收集、提交和使用 PED 的情况(第 1 部分)和确定潜在 PED 计划优先次序的最佳-最差实践(第 2 部分)进行了一项由两部分组成的在线调查,参与调查的行业和合同研究组织 (CRO) 成员最近在患者报告结果 (PRO)、自然病史研究 (NHS) 或患者偏好 (PP) 数据方面拥有≥ 2 年的经验;并且在包括 PED 在内的 FDA 申报方面拥有直接经验。结果共有 50 名符合条件的受访者(84% 为行业受访者)完成了调查的第一部分,其中 46 人完成了第二部分。大多数受访者都有 PRO(86%)和 PP(50%)经验。所有受访者都表示,食品药物管理局会议应该有一个讨论 PED 的常设议程项目。大多数受访者(78%)表示,会议应在关键试验之前召开。一个共同的挑战是,在不知道是否和如何使用数据的情况下,如何证明纳入的合理性。大多数人同意 FDA 和业界应在 FDA 临床审查中共同制定 PED 表(74%),该表应报告监管决策中不使用 PED 的原因(96%)。为推动在决策中使用 PED 而做出的最重要努力是专门的会议途径和扩大 FDA 指南(各占 51%)。结论 FDA 有扩大 PED 使用的政策目标,但在 PED 提交途径和监管决策透明度方面仍存在挑战。我们鼓励在利用现有会议机会讨论 PED、共同开发 PED 表格和扩大指导方面保持一致。
{"title":"Current Practices and Challenges When Submitting Patient Experience Data for Regulatory Decisions by the US Food and Drug Administration: An Industry Survey","authors":"Cathy Anne Pinto, Tommi Tervonen, Cecilia Jimenez-Moreno, Bennett Levitan, Montse Soriano Gabarró, Cynthia Girman, Josephine M. Norquist, Brett Hauber","doi":"10.1007/s40271-023-00653-8","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-023-00653-8","url":null,"abstract":"<h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Objectives</h3><p>To understand industry practices and challenges when submitting patient experience data (PED) for regulatory decisions by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Methods</h3><p>A two-part online survey related to collection, submission, and use of PED by FDA in regulatory decision-making (part 1) and a best-worst exercise for prioritizing potential PED initiatives (part 2) was completed by industry and contract research organization (CRO) members with ≥ 2 years of recent experience with patient-reported outcome (PRO), natural history study (NHS), or patient preference (PP) data; and direct experience with FDA filings including PED.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Results</h3><p>A total of 50 eligible respondents (84% industry) completed part 1 of the survey, among which 46 completed part 2. Respondents mostly had PRO (86%) and PP (50%) experience. All indicated that FDA meetings should have a standing agenda item to discuss PED. Most (78%) reported meetings should occur before pivotal trials. A common challenge was justifying inclusion without knowing if and how data will be used. Most agreed that FDA and industry should co-develop the PED table in the FDA clinical review (74%), and the table should report reason(s) for not using PED (96%) in regulatory decision-making. Most important efforts to advance PED use in decision-making were a dedicated meeting pathway and expanded FDA guidance (51% each).</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Conclusions</h3><p>FDA has policy targets expanding PED use, but challenges remain regarding pathways for PED submission and transparency in regulatory decision-making. Alignment on the use of existing meeting opportunities to discuss PED, co-development of the PED table, and expanded guidance are encouraged.</p>","PeriodicalId":501651,"journal":{"name":"The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research","volume":"13 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-12-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138573069","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Exploring the Preferences of Parents of Children with Myopia in Rural China for Eye Care Services Under Privatization Policy: Evidence from a Discrete Choice Experiment 探索私有化政策下中国农村近视儿童家长对眼科医疗服务的偏好:离散选择实验的证据
Pub Date : 2023-12-10 DOI: 10.1007/s40271-023-00660-9
Wen Lin, Xiaodong Dong, Jack Hennessy, Junling Zhao, Xiaochen Ma

Objectives

This study aims to measure the preferences and valuations of parents of students with myopia parents for eye care service attributes in rural China, and to quantify the potential welfare impacts of privatization policy on children’s eye care services.

Methods

A discrete choice experiment was designed and implemented among a sample of parents of children with myopia in rural China. We randomly selected 350 participants from the list of subjects obtained from local town schools and family doctors using a random number table method. The participants were asked to choose between two hypothetical scenarios defined by five attributes: provider type, distance, price, lenses type, and refractionists’ professional competencies. We estimate conditional logit and mixed logit models to approximate individual preferences for these attributes and estimate the welfare effects by calculating willingness to pay.

Results

Respondents (n = 336) showed a significant preference for public providers of refractive error services, myopia control lenses, and professional refractionists (P < 0.01 for each). Consumer welfare losses due to a prohibition of the public provision of refractive error services could be compensated by improving the quality of products and services delivered by private providers. Lastly, both parent and child demographics and previous experience of eye care service consumption are important predictors of willingness to pay for refractive error services.

Conclusions

The privatization policy on children’s eye care services would not cater to the preferences of rural consumers, inevitably leading to welfare losses. However, reduced consumer welfare could be compensated by improving the quality of products and service delivery from private providers. These results could help inform strategies to improve and reduce inequities in access to high-quality eye care services in rural China.

本研究旨在测量中国农村近视学生家长对眼科医疗服务属性的偏好和评价,并量化民营化政策对儿童眼科医疗服务的潜在福利影响。方法在中国农村近视学生家长中设计并实施了离散选择实验。我们采用随机数字表法,从当地城镇学校和家庭医生处获得的受试者名单中随机抽取了 350 名参与者。受试者被要求在两种假设情景中做出选择,这两种情景由五个属性定义:医疗机构类型、距离、价格、镜片类型和屈光医生的专业能力。我们估算了条件 logit 模型和混合 logit 模型,以近似反映个人对这些属性的偏好,并通过计算支付意愿来估算福利效应。结果受访者(n = 336)对屈光不正服务、近视控制镜片和专业屈光医师的公共提供者表现出显著偏好(P 均为 0.01)。禁止公立机构提供屈光不正服务所造成的消费者福利损失,可以通过提高私立机构提供的产品和服务质量来弥补。最后,家长和儿童的人口统计学特征以及以往的眼保健服务消费经验都是预测屈光不正服务付费意愿的重要因素。然而,消费者福利的减少可以通过提高私营机构的产品质量和服务质量来弥补。这些结果有助于为改善和减少中国农村地区在获得高质量眼保健服务方面的不公平现象提供参考。
{"title":"Exploring the Preferences of Parents of Children with Myopia in Rural China for Eye Care Services Under Privatization Policy: Evidence from a Discrete Choice Experiment","authors":"Wen Lin, Xiaodong Dong, Jack Hennessy, Junling Zhao, Xiaochen Ma","doi":"10.1007/s40271-023-00660-9","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-023-00660-9","url":null,"abstract":"<h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Objectives</h3><p>This study aims to measure the preferences and valuations of parents of students with myopia parents for eye care service attributes in rural China, and to quantify the potential welfare impacts of privatization policy on children’s eye care services.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Methods</h3><p>A discrete choice experiment was designed and implemented among a sample of parents of children with myopia in rural China. We randomly selected 350 participants from the list of subjects obtained from local town schools and family doctors using a random number table method. The participants were asked to choose between two hypothetical scenarios defined by five attributes: provider type, distance, price, lenses type, and refractionists’ professional competencies. We estimate conditional logit and mixed logit models to approximate individual preferences for these attributes and estimate the welfare effects by calculating willingness to pay.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Results</h3><p>Respondents (<i>n</i> = 336) showed a significant preference for public providers of refractive error services, myopia control lenses, and professional refractionists (<i>P</i> &lt; 0.01 for each). Consumer welfare losses due to a prohibition of the public provision of refractive error services could be compensated by improving the quality of products and services delivered by private providers. Lastly, both parent and child demographics and previous experience of eye care service consumption are important predictors of willingness to pay for refractive error services.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Conclusions</h3><p>The privatization policy on children’s eye care services would not cater to the preferences of rural consumers, inevitably leading to welfare losses<i>.</i> However, reduced consumer welfare could be compensated by improving the quality of products and service delivery from private providers. These results could help inform strategies to improve and reduce inequities in access to high-quality eye care services in rural China.</p>","PeriodicalId":501651,"journal":{"name":"The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research","volume":"21 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-12-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138567953","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
A Best–Worst Scaling Study of the General Population's Preferences for Activities in Living Arrangements for Persons With Dementia 关于普通人群对痴呆症患者生活安排活动偏好的最佳-最差比例研究
Pub Date : 2023-12-08 DOI: 10.1007/s40271-023-00661-8
Christian Speckemeier, Carina Abels, Klemens Höfer, Anke Walendzik, Jürgen Wasem, Silke Neusser

Background

Activity involvement is a central element of dementia care. However, few studies have examined preferences for types of activities for persons who may be in need of care in the future. In this study, a best–worst scaling (BWS) was conducted to gather insights on preferred activities in small-scale living arrangements for dementia in the general population aged 50–65 years from rural and urban regions.

Methods

BWS tasks were developed based on literature searches and focus groups. The final BWS contains ten activities, namely ‘interaction with animals’, ‘gardening’, ‘painting, handicrafts, manual activities’, ‘household activities (e.g., folding laundry, cooking)’, ‘watching television’, ‘practicing religion’, ‘listening to music and singing familiar songs’, ‘conversations about the past’, ‘walks and excursions’, ‘sport activities (e.g., gymnastics)’. Each participant had to fill out subsets of four objects each and identify them as best and worst. A postal survey was sent to a total of 4390 persons from rural and urban regions aged between 50 and 65 years. Results were analyzed by count analysis and logit models. It was examined if preferences differ with respect to gender, religiousness, and informal caregiving experience.

Results

A total of 840 questionnaires were returned, and 627 surveys were included in the analysis. In the rural sample, the highest relative importance (RI) was assigned to ‘walks and excursions’ (RI: 100%), ‘sport activities (e.g., gymnastics)’ (RI: 56%), ‘gardening’ (RI: 28%), and ‘interaction with animals’ (26%). In the urban sample, ‘walks and excursions’ (RI: 100%), ‘sport activities (e.g., gymnastics)’ (RI: 37%), ‘interaction with animals’ (25%) and ‘gardening’ (RI: 22%) were perceived as most important. In both groups, household activities and practicing religion were of lowest importance. Importance ranks differed between subgroups. Results of the logit models with random effects showed the same order as results from the count analyses.

Discussion

Our findings show that respondents generally favored activities with an outdoor component, while the household activities that are part of many concepts were of low importance to respondents. Thus, our study can inform the design of a preference-based specific range of activities in small-scale living arrangements for dementia.

背景参与活动是痴呆症护理的核心要素。然而,很少有研究对未来可能需要护理的人的活动类型偏好进行调查。在这项研究中,我们进行了一项最佳-最差评分(BWS),以收集来自农村和城市地区 50-65 岁普通人群对痴呆症小型生活安排中首选活动的见解。最终的 BWS 包括十项活动,即 "与动物互动"、"园艺"、"绘画、手工艺、手工活动"、"家务活动(如叠衣服、做饭)"、"看电视"、"宗教活动"、"听音乐和唱熟悉的歌曲"、"谈论过去"、"散步和远足"、"体育活动(如体操)"。每位参与者都必须填写每组四个对象的子集,并将其分为最好和最差。我们向来自农村和城市地区的 4390 名年龄在 50 岁至 65 岁之间的人进行了邮寄调查。调查结果通过计数分析和对数模型进行了分析。结果 共收回 840 份问卷,其中 627 份被纳入分析。在农村样本中,"散步和远足"(RI:100%)、"体育活动(如体操)"(RI:56%)、"园艺"(RI:28%)和 "与动物互动"(26%)的相对重要性最高。在城市样本中,"散步和远足"(地区指标:100%)、"体育活动(如体操)"(地区指标: 37%)、"与动物交往"(25%)和 "园艺"(地区指标:22%)被认为是最重要的。在这两个群体中,家务活动和宗教活动的重要性最低。各分组的重要程度不同。我们的研究结果表明,受访者普遍倾向于户外活动,而作为许多概念组成部分的家务活动对受访者的重要性较低。因此,我们的研究可以为设计基于偏好的痴呆症患者小规模生活安排的具体活动范围提供参考。
{"title":"A Best–Worst Scaling Study of the General Population's Preferences for Activities in Living Arrangements for Persons With Dementia","authors":"Christian Speckemeier, Carina Abels, Klemens Höfer, Anke Walendzik, Jürgen Wasem, Silke Neusser","doi":"10.1007/s40271-023-00661-8","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-023-00661-8","url":null,"abstract":"<h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Background</h3><p>Activity involvement is a central element of dementia care. However, few studies have examined preferences for types of activities for persons who may be in need of care in the future. In this study, a best–worst scaling (BWS) was conducted to gather insights on preferred activities in small-scale living arrangements for dementia in the general population aged 50–65 years from rural and urban regions.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Methods</h3><p>BWS tasks were developed based on literature searches and focus groups. The final BWS contains ten activities, namely ‘interaction with animals’, ‘gardening’, ‘painting, handicrafts, manual activities’, ‘household activities (e.g., folding laundry, cooking)’, ‘watching television’, ‘practicing religion’, ‘listening to music and singing familiar songs’, ‘conversations about the past’, ‘walks and excursions’, ‘sport activities (e.g., gymnastics)’. Each participant had to fill out subsets of four objects each and identify them as best and worst. A postal survey was sent to a total of 4390 persons from rural and urban regions aged between 50 and 65 years. Results were analyzed by count analysis and logit models. It was examined if preferences differ with respect to gender, religiousness, and informal caregiving experience.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Results</h3><p>A total of 840 questionnaires were returned, and 627 surveys were included in the analysis. In the rural sample, the highest relative importance (RI) was assigned to ‘walks and excursions’ (RI: 100%), ‘sport activities (e.g., gymnastics)’ (RI: 56%), ‘gardening’ (RI: 28%), and ‘interaction with animals’ (26%). In the urban sample, ‘walks and excursions’ (RI: 100%), ‘sport activities (e.g., gymnastics)’ (RI: 37%), ‘interaction with animals’ (25%) and ‘gardening’ (RI: 22%) were perceived as most important. In both groups, household activities and practicing religion were of lowest importance. Importance ranks differed between subgroups. Results of the logit models with random effects showed the same order as results from the count analyses.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Discussion</h3><p>Our findings show that respondents generally favored activities with an outdoor component, while the household activities that are part of many concepts were of low importance to respondents. Thus, our study can inform the design of a preference-based specific range of activities in small-scale living arrangements for dementia.</p>","PeriodicalId":501651,"journal":{"name":"The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research","volume":"76 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-12-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138564200","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
期刊
The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research
全部 Acc. Chem. Res. ACS Applied Bio Materials ACS Appl. Electron. Mater. ACS Appl. Energy Mater. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces ACS Appl. Nano Mater. ACS Appl. Polym. Mater. ACS BIOMATER-SCI ENG ACS Catal. ACS Cent. Sci. ACS Chem. Biol. ACS Chemical Health & Safety ACS Chem. Neurosci. ACS Comb. Sci. ACS Earth Space Chem. ACS Energy Lett. ACS Infect. Dis. ACS Macro Lett. ACS Mater. Lett. ACS Med. Chem. Lett. ACS Nano ACS Omega ACS Photonics ACS Sens. ACS Sustainable Chem. Eng. ACS Synth. Biol. Anal. Chem. BIOCHEMISTRY-US Bioconjugate Chem. BIOMACROMOLECULES Chem. Res. Toxicol. Chem. Rev. Chem. Mater. CRYST GROWTH DES ENERG FUEL Environ. Sci. Technol. Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. Eur. J. Inorg. Chem. IND ENG CHEM RES Inorg. Chem. J. Agric. Food. Chem. J. Chem. Eng. Data J. Chem. Educ. J. Chem. Inf. Model. J. Chem. Theory Comput. J. Med. Chem. J. Nat. Prod. J PROTEOME RES J. Am. Chem. Soc. LANGMUIR MACROMOLECULES Mol. Pharmaceutics Nano Lett. Org. Lett. ORG PROCESS RES DEV ORGANOMETALLICS J. Org. Chem. J. Phys. Chem. J. Phys. Chem. A J. Phys. Chem. B J. Phys. Chem. C J. Phys. Chem. Lett. Analyst Anal. Methods Biomater. Sci. Catal. Sci. Technol. Chem. Commun. Chem. Soc. Rev. CHEM EDUC RES PRACT CRYSTENGCOMM Dalton Trans. Energy Environ. Sci. ENVIRON SCI-NANO ENVIRON SCI-PROC IMP ENVIRON SCI-WAT RES Faraday Discuss. Food Funct. Green Chem. Inorg. Chem. Front. Integr. Biol. J. Anal. At. Spectrom. J. Mater. Chem. A J. Mater. Chem. B J. Mater. Chem. C Lab Chip Mater. Chem. Front. Mater. Horiz. MEDCHEMCOMM Metallomics Mol. Biosyst. Mol. Syst. Des. Eng. Nanoscale Nanoscale Horiz. Nat. Prod. Rep. New J. Chem. Org. Biomol. Chem. Org. Chem. Front. PHOTOCH PHOTOBIO SCI PCCP Polym. Chem.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
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
×
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
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
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