激发探索性患者偏好数据:罕见疾病案例研究。

IF 3.1 Q2 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY Pharmaceutical Medicine Pub Date : 2024-01-01 Epub Date: 2023-12-21 DOI:10.1007/s40290-023-00509-4
Kerrie-Anne Ho, Anna Pierce, Meredin Stoltenberg, Thais Tarancon, Carol Mansfield
{"title":"激发探索性患者偏好数据:罕见疾病案例研究。","authors":"Kerrie-Anne Ho, Anna Pierce, Meredin Stoltenberg, Thais Tarancon, Carol Mansfield","doi":"10.1007/s40290-023-00509-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Qualitative and quantitative methods provide different and complementary insights into patients' preferences for treatment.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>The aim of this study was to use a novel, mixed-methods approach employing qualitative and quantitative approaches to generate preliminary insights into patient preferences for the treatment of a rare disease-generalized myasthenia gravis (gMG).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a mixed-methods study to collect exploratory qualitative and quantitative patient preference information and generate informative results within a condensed timeline (about 4 months). Recruitment was facilitated by an international health research firm. Study participants first reviewed a brief document describing six treatment attributes (to facilitate more efficient review of the material during the focus groups) and were then provided a link to complete an online quantitative survey with a single risk threshold task. They then participated in online focus groups, during which they discussed qualitative questions about their experience with gMG treatment and completed up to three quantitative threshold tasks, the first of which repeated the threshold task from the online survey.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The study elicited both quantitative data on 18 participants' risk tolerance and qualitative data on their treatment experience, additional treatment attributes of importance, the reasoning behind their preferences, and the trade-offs they were willing to make. Most participants (n = 15) chose the same hypothetical treatment in the first threshold task in the online survey and the focus groups. Focus group discussions provided insights into participants' choices in the threshold tasks, confirmed that all the attributes were relevant, and helped clarify what was important about the attributes.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Patient preference information can be collected using a variety of approaches, both qualitative and quantitative, tailored to fit the research needs of a study. The novel mixed-methods approach employed in this study efficiently captured patient preference data that were informative for exploratory research, internal decision making, and future research.</p>","PeriodicalId":19778,"journal":{"name":"Pharmaceutical Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"55-62"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10824859/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Eliciting Exploratory Patient Preference Data: A Case Study in a Rare Disease.\",\"authors\":\"Kerrie-Anne Ho, Anna Pierce, Meredin Stoltenberg, Thais Tarancon, Carol Mansfield\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s40290-023-00509-4\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Qualitative and quantitative methods provide different and complementary insights into patients' preferences for treatment.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>The aim of this study was to use a novel, mixed-methods approach employing qualitative and quantitative approaches to generate preliminary insights into patient preferences for the treatment of a rare disease-generalized myasthenia gravis (gMG).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a mixed-methods study to collect exploratory qualitative and quantitative patient preference information and generate informative results within a condensed timeline (about 4 months). Recruitment was facilitated by an international health research firm. Study participants first reviewed a brief document describing six treatment attributes (to facilitate more efficient review of the material during the focus groups) and were then provided a link to complete an online quantitative survey with a single risk threshold task. They then participated in online focus groups, during which they discussed qualitative questions about their experience with gMG treatment and completed up to three quantitative threshold tasks, the first of which repeated the threshold task from the online survey.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The study elicited both quantitative data on 18 participants' risk tolerance and qualitative data on their treatment experience, additional treatment attributes of importance, the reasoning behind their preferences, and the trade-offs they were willing to make. Most participants (n = 15) chose the same hypothetical treatment in the first threshold task in the online survey and the focus groups. Focus group discussions provided insights into participants' choices in the threshold tasks, confirmed that all the attributes were relevant, and helped clarify what was important about the attributes.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Patient preference information can be collected using a variety of approaches, both qualitative and quantitative, tailored to fit the research needs of a study. The novel mixed-methods approach employed in this study efficiently captured patient preference data that were informative for exploratory research, internal decision making, and future research.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19778,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Pharmaceutical Medicine\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"55-62\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10824859/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Pharmaceutical Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40290-023-00509-4\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/12/21 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pharmaceutical Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40290-023-00509-4","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/12/21 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

简介:定性和定量方法对患者的治疗偏好提供了不同和互补的见解:定性和定量方法为了解患者对治疗的偏好提供了不同的、互补的见解:本研究的目的是采用一种新颖的混合方法,运用定性和定量的方法,初步了解患者对治疗罕见疾病--全身性肌无力(gMG)的偏好:我们开展了一项混合方法研究,以收集探索性的定性和定量患者偏好信息,并在较短的时间内(约 4 个月)得出翔实的结果。研究人员的招募工作由一家国际健康研究公司负责。研究参与者首先浏览了一份描述六种治疗属性的简短文件(以便在焦点小组讨论期间更有效地浏览资料),然后获得了一个链接,以完成一项在线定量调查,其中包括一个单一的风险阈值任务。然后,他们参加了在线焦点小组,在小组讨论期间,他们讨论了有关他们接受基因组学治疗经历的定性问题,并完成了多达三个定量阈值任务,其中第一个任务重复了在线调查中的阈值任务:该研究收集了 18 位参与者风险承受能力的定量数据,以及他们的治疗经验、其他重要治疗属性、偏好背后的原因和愿意做出的权衡等定性数据。大多数参与者(n = 15)在在线调查和焦点小组中的第一个阈值任务中选择了相同的假设治疗方法。焦点小组讨论深入了解了参与者在阈值任务中的选择,确认了所有属性都是相关的,并帮助澄清了属性的重要性:患者偏好信息的收集可采用多种方法,包括定性和定量方法,以满足研究的需要。本研究采用的新颖混合方法有效地获取了患者偏好数据,为探索性研究、内部决策和未来研究提供了信息。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Eliciting Exploratory Patient Preference Data: A Case Study in a Rare Disease.

Introduction: Qualitative and quantitative methods provide different and complementary insights into patients' preferences for treatment.

Objective: The aim of this study was to use a novel, mixed-methods approach employing qualitative and quantitative approaches to generate preliminary insights into patient preferences for the treatment of a rare disease-generalized myasthenia gravis (gMG).

Methods: We conducted a mixed-methods study to collect exploratory qualitative and quantitative patient preference information and generate informative results within a condensed timeline (about 4 months). Recruitment was facilitated by an international health research firm. Study participants first reviewed a brief document describing six treatment attributes (to facilitate more efficient review of the material during the focus groups) and were then provided a link to complete an online quantitative survey with a single risk threshold task. They then participated in online focus groups, during which they discussed qualitative questions about their experience with gMG treatment and completed up to three quantitative threshold tasks, the first of which repeated the threshold task from the online survey.

Results: The study elicited both quantitative data on 18 participants' risk tolerance and qualitative data on their treatment experience, additional treatment attributes of importance, the reasoning behind their preferences, and the trade-offs they were willing to make. Most participants (n = 15) chose the same hypothetical treatment in the first threshold task in the online survey and the focus groups. Focus group discussions provided insights into participants' choices in the threshold tasks, confirmed that all the attributes were relevant, and helped clarify what was important about the attributes.

Conclusions: Patient preference information can be collected using a variety of approaches, both qualitative and quantitative, tailored to fit the research needs of a study. The novel mixed-methods approach employed in this study efficiently captured patient preference data that were informative for exploratory research, internal decision making, and future research.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Pharmaceutical Medicine
Pharmaceutical Medicine PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY-
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
4.00%
发文量
36
期刊介绍: Pharmaceutical Medicine is a specialist discipline concerned with medical aspects of the discovery, development, evaluation, registration, regulation, monitoring, marketing, distribution and pricing of medicines, drug-device and drug-diagnostic combinations. The Journal disseminates information to support the community of professionals working in these highly inter-related functions. Key areas include translational medicine, clinical trial design, pharmacovigilance, clinical toxicology, drug regulation, clinical pharmacology, biostatistics and pharmacoeconomics. The Journal includes:Overviews of contentious or emerging issues.Comprehensive narrative reviews that provide an authoritative source of information on topical issues.Systematic reviews that collate empirical evidence to answer a specific research question, using explicit, systematic methods as outlined by PRISMA statement.Original research articles reporting the results of well-designed studies with a strong link to wider areas of clinical research.Additional digital features (including animated abstracts, video abstracts, slide decks, audio slides, instructional videos, infographics, podcasts and animations) can be published with articles; these are designed to increase the visibility, readership and educational value of the journal’s content. In addition, articles published in Pharmaceutical Medicine may be accompanied by plain language summaries to assist readers who have some knowledge of, but not in-depth expertise in, the area to understand important medical advances.All manuscripts are subject to peer review by international experts. Letters to the Editor are welcomed and will be considered for publication.
期刊最新文献
European Pharmaceutical Industry Medical Information: A Role to Play in the Provision of Medicine-Related Information to Patients. Addressing Challenges in Antibiotic Access: Barriers, Implications and Strategies for Solution. Transdermal Drug Delivery Systems: Different Generations and Dermatokinetic Assessment of Drug Concentration in Skin. The Pharmaceutical Year that was, 2024. Cultivating Excellence: Future-Proofing Medical Affairs with Tailored Talent Programs.
×
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: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