What Matters to Patients? A Systematic Review of Preferences for Medication-associated Outcomes in Mental Disorders

Overview

Journal BMJ Open

Specialty General Medicine

Date 2015 Apr 10

PMID 25854979

Citations 28

Authors

Oystein Eiring

Brynjar Fowels Landmark

Endre Aas

Glenn Salkeld

Magne Nylenna

Kari Nytroen

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Objective: To investigate patients' preferences for outcomes associated with psychoactive medications.

Setting/design: Systematic review of stated preference studies. No settings restrictions were applied.

Participants/eligibility Criteria: We included studies containing quantitative data regarding the relative value adults with mental disorders place on treatment outcomes. Studies with high risk of bias were excluded.

Primary And Secondary Outcome Measures: We restricted the scope of our review to preferences for outcomes, including the consequences from, attributes of, and health states associated with particular medications or medication classes, and process outcomes.

Results: After reviewing 11 215 citations, 16 studies were included in the systematic review. These studies reported the stated preferences from patients with schizophrenia (n=9), depression (n=4), bipolar disorder (n=2) and attention deficit hyperactive disorder (n=1). The median sample size was 81. Side effects and symptom outcomes outnumbered functioning and process outcomes. Severe disease and hospitalisation were reported to be least desirable. Patients with schizophrenia tended to value disease states as higher and side effects as lower, compared to other stakeholder groups. In depression, the ability to cope with activities was found to be more important than a depressed mood, per se. Patient preferences could not consistently be predicted from demographic or disease variables. Only a limited number of potentially important outcomes had been investigated. Benefits to patients were not part of the purpose in 9 of the 16 studies, and in 10 studies patients were not involved when the outcomes to present were selected.

Conclusions: Insufficient evidence exists on the relative value patients with mental disorders place on medication-associated outcomes. To increase patient-centredness in decisions involving psychoactive drugs, further research-with outcomes elicited from patients, and for a larger number of conditions-should be undertaken.

Trial Registration Number: PROSPERO CRD42013005685.

Citing Articles

Assessing patient satisfaction with hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis care and associated factors in Iran.

Nemati N, Yousefi M, Keshvari-Shad F, Akbari S, Barfar E Int Urol Nephrol. 2024; .

PMID: 39731644 DOI: 10.1007/s11255-024-04346-5.

Discrete Choice Experiments to Elicit Patient Preferences for the Treatment of Major Depressive Disorder: A Systematic Review.

dosReis S, Espinal Pena D, Fincannon A, Gorman E, Amill-Rosario A Patient. 2024; 18(1):19-33.

PMID: 38969878 DOI: 10.1007/s40271-024-00706-6.

Quality Appraisal in Systematic Literature Reviews of Studies Eliciting Health State Utility Values: Conceptual Considerations.

Muchadeyi M, Hernandez-Villafuerte K, Di Tanna G, Eckford R, Feng Y, Meregaglia M Pharmacoeconomics. 2024; 42(7):767-782.

PMID: 38551803 PMC: 11180162. DOI: 10.1007/s40273-024-01365-z.

Prevalence of mental disorders and high rates of absenteeism from work among healthcare professionals in Slovenia: a retrospective study.

Korosec D, Vrbnjak D, Stiglic G BMJ Open. 2023; 13(12):e075718.

PMID: 38070887 PMC: 10729225. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2023-075718.

Quality appraisal for systematic literature reviews of health state utility values: a descriptive analysis.

Muchadeyi M, Hernandez-Villafuerte K, Schlander M BMC Med Res Methodol. 2022; 22(1):303.

PMID: 36434521 PMC: 9700894. DOI: 10.1186/s12874-022-01784-6.

References

Wortley S, Wong G, Kieu A, Howard K . Assessing stated preferences for colorectal cancer screening: a critical systematic review of discrete choice experiments. Patient. 2014; 7(3):271-82. DOI: 10.1007/s40271-014-0054-3. View

MacLean S, Mulla S, Akl E, Jankowski M, Vandvik P, Ebrahim S . Patient values and preferences in decision making for antithrombotic therapy: a systematic review: Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis, 9th ed: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines. Chest. 2012; 141(2 Suppl):e1S-e23S. PMC: 3278050. DOI: 10.1378/chest.11-2290. View

Sackett D, Rosenberg W, Gray J, Haynes R, Richardson W . Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn't. BMJ. 1996; 312(7023):71-2. PMC: 2349778. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.312.7023.71. View

Flood C . Should "standard gamble" and "'time trade off" utility measurement be used more in mental health research?. J Ment Health Policy Econ. 2010; 13(2):65-72. View

Reed Johnson F, Ozdemir S, Manjunath R, Hauber A, Burch S, Thompson T . Factors that affect adherence to bipolar disorder treatments: a stated-preference approach. Med Care. 2007; 45(6):545-52. DOI: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e318040ad90. View

Opmeer B, de Borgie C, Mol B, Bossuyt P . Assessing Preferences Regarding Healthcare Interventions that Involve Non-Health Outcomes: An Overview of Clinical Studies. Patient. 2012; 3(1):1-10. DOI: 10.2165/11531750-000000000-00000. View

Lenert L, MORSS S, Goldstein M, Bergen M, Faustman W, Garber A . Measurement of the validity of utility elicitations performed by computerized interview. Med Care. 1997; 35(9):915-20. DOI: 10.1097/00005650-199709000-00004. View

Bridges J, Slawik L, Schmeding A, Reimer J, Naber D, Kuhnigk O . A test of concordance between patient and psychiatrist valuations of multiple treatment goals for schizophrenia. Health Expect. 2011; 16(2):164-76. PMC: 5060657. DOI: 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2011.00704.x. View

Gartlehner G, Flamm M . Is the Cochrane collaboration prepared for the era of patient-centred outcomes research?. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013; (3):ED000054. PMC: 10846354. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.ED000054. View

10.

Elwyn G, Frosch D, Rollnick S . Dual equipoise shared decision making: definitions for decision and behaviour support interventions. Implement Sci. 2009; 4:75. PMC: 2784743. DOI: 10.1186/1748-5908-4-75. View

11.

Swift J, Callahan J . The impact of client treatment preferences on outcome: a meta-analysis. J Clin Psychol. 2009; 65(4):368-81. DOI: 10.1002/jclp.20553. View

12.

Shumway M, Sentell T, Chouljian T, Tellier J, Rozewicz F, Okun M . Assessing preferences for schizophrenia outcomes: comprehension and decision strategies in three assessment methods. Ment Health Serv Res. 2004; 5(3):121-35. DOI: 10.1023/a:1024415001045. View

13.

Green C, Estroff S, Yarborough B, Spofford M, Solloway M, Kitson R . Directions for future patient-centered and comparative effectiveness research for people with serious mental illness in a learning mental health care system. Schizophr Bull. 2014; 40 Suppl 1:S1-S94. PMC: 3911266. DOI: 10.1093/schbul/sbt170. View

14.

Revicki D, Wood M . Patient-assigned health state utilities for depression-related outcomes: differences by depression severity and antidepressant medications. J Affect Disord. 1998; 48(1):25-36. DOI: 10.1016/s0165-0327(97)00117-1. View

15.

Briggs A, Wild D, Lees M, Reaney M, Dursun S, Parry D . Impact of schizophrenia and schizophrenia treatment-related adverse events on quality of life: direct utility elicitation. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2008; 6:105. PMC: 2613374. DOI: 10.1186/1477-7525-6-105. View

16.

Vieta A, Badia X, Alvarez E, Sacristan J . Which nontraditional outcomes should be measured in healthcare decision-making in schizophrenia? A systematic review. Perspect Psychiatr Care. 2012; 48(4):198-207. DOI: 10.1111/j.1744-6163.2011.00325.x. View

17.

Egbrink M, IJzerman M . The value of quantitative patient preferences in regulatory benefit-risk assessment. J Mark Access Health Policy. 2016; 2. PMC: 4865769. DOI: 10.3402/jmahp.v2.22761. View

18.

Lee T, Ziegler J, Sommi R, Sugar C, Mahmoud R, Lenert L . Comparison of preferences for health outcomes in schizophrenia among stakeholder groups. J Psychiatr Res. 2000; 34(3):201-10. DOI: 10.1016/s0022-3956(00)00009-1. View

19.

Brennan P, Strombom I . Improving health care by understanding patient preferences: the role of computer technology. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 1998; 5(3):257-62. PMC: 61299. DOI: 10.1136/jamia.1998.0050257. View

20.

Ryan M, Scott D, Reeves C, Bate A, van Teijlingen E, Russell E . Eliciting public preferences for healthcare: a systematic review of techniques. Health Technol Assess. 2001; 5(5):1-186. DOI: 10.3310/hta5050. View