高危人群对骨质疏松症治疗的既定偏好:系统回顾

Eva-Lotta Hinzpeter, Lakshmi Nagendra, Nadja Kairies-Schwarz, Charlotte Beaudart, Mickaël Hiligsmann
{"title":"高危人群对骨质疏松症治疗的既定偏好:系统回顾","authors":"Eva-Lotta Hinzpeter, Lakshmi Nagendra, Nadja Kairies-Schwarz, Charlotte Beaudart, Mickaël Hiligsmann","doi":"10.1007/s40271-024-00714-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Introduction</h3><p>Poor adherence to anti-osteoporosis treatment is a well-recognized problem, partly due to misalignment with patient preferences. In recent years, several quantitative preference studies have been conducted. This study aimed to systematically review stated preference research to provide a comprehensive overview of patient preferences in osteoporosis, in particular on conditional relative attribute importance and preference heterogeneity.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Methods</h3><p>This systematic review was conducted in MEDLINE and Embase up to February 29th, 2024. It includes all English-language, peer-reviewed, stated preference articles related to osteoporosis management and treatment in patients with or at risk of osteoporosis. Conditional relative importance of attributes as well as heterogeneity was assessed, and attributes classified into outcome, process, and cost attributes. Quality assessment was performed using a combined checklist of Purpose, Respondents, Explanation, Findings, and Significance (PREFS) and International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) items.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Results</h3><p>Fourteen studies including 4714 participants were evaluated. Attributes were mostly classified as process related (50%) and outcome related (40%), both of which significantly influence patient preferences. In pairwise attribute comparison, efficacy was dominant over cost, administration, and side-effects. Preference heterogeneity was observed in the majority of studies (86%). Quality assessment indicated an overall improvement in study quality over time, with recent studies adhering more closely to established methodological standards.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Conclusions</h3><p>The findings highlight the importance of considering patient preferences in the management of osteoporosis, underscoring the need for a patient-centered approach. The readiness of patients to engage in trade-offs between attributes suggests that healthcare providers should ensure treatments are aligned with individual patient preferences to improve adherence and optimize outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":501651,"journal":{"name":"The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research","volume":"20 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Stated Preferences of At-Risk Populations for the Treatment of Osteoporosis: A Systematic Review\",\"authors\":\"Eva-Lotta Hinzpeter, Lakshmi Nagendra, Nadja Kairies-Schwarz, Charlotte Beaudart, Mickaël Hiligsmann\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s40271-024-00714-6\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<h3 data-test=\\\"abstract-sub-heading\\\">Introduction</h3><p>Poor adherence to anti-osteoporosis treatment is a well-recognized problem, partly due to misalignment with patient preferences. In recent years, several quantitative preference studies have been conducted. This study aimed to systematically review stated preference research to provide a comprehensive overview of patient preferences in osteoporosis, in particular on conditional relative attribute importance and preference heterogeneity.</p><h3 data-test=\\\"abstract-sub-heading\\\">Methods</h3><p>This systematic review was conducted in MEDLINE and Embase up to February 29th, 2024. It includes all English-language, peer-reviewed, stated preference articles related to osteoporosis management and treatment in patients with or at risk of osteoporosis. Conditional relative importance of attributes as well as heterogeneity was assessed, and attributes classified into outcome, process, and cost attributes. Quality assessment was performed using a combined checklist of Purpose, Respondents, Explanation, Findings, and Significance (PREFS) and International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) items.</p><h3 data-test=\\\"abstract-sub-heading\\\">Results</h3><p>Fourteen studies including 4714 participants were evaluated. Attributes were mostly classified as process related (50%) and outcome related (40%), both of which significantly influence patient preferences. In pairwise attribute comparison, efficacy was dominant over cost, administration, and side-effects. Preference heterogeneity was observed in the majority of studies (86%). Quality assessment indicated an overall improvement in study quality over time, with recent studies adhering more closely to established methodological standards.</p><h3 data-test=\\\"abstract-sub-heading\\\">Conclusions</h3><p>The findings highlight the importance of considering patient preferences in the management of osteoporosis, underscoring the need for a patient-centered approach. The readiness of patients to engage in trade-offs between attributes suggests that healthcare providers should ensure treatments are aligned with individual patient preferences to improve adherence and optimize outcomes.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":501651,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research\",\"volume\":\"20 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-024-00714-6\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-024-00714-6","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

导言:抗骨质疏松症治疗的依从性差是一个公认的问题,部分原因是与患者的偏好不一致。近年来,已开展了多项定量偏好研究。本研究旨在对陈述偏好研究进行系统回顾,以全面了解骨质疏松症患者的偏好,尤其是条件相对属性重要性和偏好异质性。它包括所有与骨质疏松症患者或有骨质疏松症风险的患者的骨质疏松症管理和治疗有关的、经同行评审的、陈述偏好的英文文章。对属性的条件相对重要性和异质性进行了评估,并将属性分为结果、过程和成本属性。质量评估采用了目的、受访者、解释、结果和意义(PREFS)以及国际药物经济学和结果研究学会(ISPOR)的综合检查表。属性主要分为过程相关属性(50%)和结果相关属性(40%),这两种属性对患者的偏好都有显著影响。在成对属性比较中,疗效优于成本、管理和副作用。大多数研究(86%)都发现了偏好异质性。质量评估表明,随着时间的推移,研究质量总体上有所提高,近期的研究更严格遵守既定的方法学标准。患者愿意在不同属性之间进行权衡,这表明医疗服务提供者应确保治疗符合患者的个人偏好,以提高患者的依从性并优化治疗效果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

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
Stated Preferences of At-Risk Populations for the Treatment of Osteoporosis: A Systematic Review

Introduction

Poor adherence to anti-osteoporosis treatment is a well-recognized problem, partly due to misalignment with patient preferences. In recent years, several quantitative preference studies have been conducted. This study aimed to systematically review stated preference research to provide a comprehensive overview of patient preferences in osteoporosis, in particular on conditional relative attribute importance and preference heterogeneity.

Methods

This systematic review was conducted in MEDLINE and Embase up to February 29th, 2024. It includes all English-language, peer-reviewed, stated preference articles related to osteoporosis management and treatment in patients with or at risk of osteoporosis. Conditional relative importance of attributes as well as heterogeneity was assessed, and attributes classified into outcome, process, and cost attributes. Quality assessment was performed using a combined checklist of Purpose, Respondents, Explanation, Findings, and Significance (PREFS) and International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) items.

Results

Fourteen studies including 4714 participants were evaluated. Attributes were mostly classified as process related (50%) and outcome related (40%), both of which significantly influence patient preferences. In pairwise attribute comparison, efficacy was dominant over cost, administration, and side-effects. Preference heterogeneity was observed in the majority of studies (86%). Quality assessment indicated an overall improvement in study quality over time, with recent studies adhering more closely to established methodological standards.

Conclusions

The findings highlight the importance of considering patient preferences in the management of osteoporosis, underscoring the need for a patient-centered approach. The readiness of patients to engage in trade-offs between attributes suggests that healthcare providers should ensure treatments are aligned with individual patient preferences to improve adherence and optimize outcomes.

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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Exploring How Values of Colorectal Cancer Patients and their Caregivers Influence Treatment Decision-Making Measuring and Demonstrating the Value of Patient Engagement Across the Medicines Lifecycle: A Patient Engagement Impact Measurement Framework Stated Preferences of At-Risk Populations for the Treatment of Osteoporosis: A Systematic Review Optimizing Communication on HPV Vaccination to Parents of 11- to 14-Year-Old Adolescents in France: A Discrete Choice Experiment An Overview of Data Collection in Health Preference Research
×
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