» Articles » PMID: 31242905

Using a Stated Preference Discrete Choice Experiment to Assess Societal Value from the Perspective of Patients with Rare Diseases in Italy

Overview
Publisher Biomed Central
Specialty General Medicine
Date 2019 Jun 28
PMID 31242905
Citations 9
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Decision makers have huge problems when attempting to attribute social value to the improvements achieved by new drugs, especially when considering the use of orphan drugs for rare diseases. We present the results of a pilot study aimed to investigate patient preferences regarding public funding for drugs used to treat rare diseases.

Methods: An online questionnaire was used as a discrete choice experiment (DCE) survey to explore the preferences of patients with cystic fibrosis and haemophilia in Italy. The questionnaire focused on relevant issues that were defined in a review of the literature. A conditional logistic model showed preferences for specific attributes.

Results: A total of 54 questionnaires (20% response rate) were completed. The issues that received the greatest attention were improvement in health, treatment cost and value for money. However, disease severity and the availability of other treatments were important social values that could not be ignored.

Conclusions: The findings presented here provide evidence as to what patients with cystic fibrosis or haemophilia think are the most important considerations on which to base decisions in health technology scenarios, and regarding the priorities for funding.

Citing Articles

Parental perception of treatment options for mucopolysaccharidosis: a survey to bridge the gap for personalized medicine.

Wiesinger A, Lagler F Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2025; 20(1):36.

PMID: 39856766 PMC: 11762465. DOI: 10.1186/s13023-025-03549-y.


Establishment of a value assessment framework for orphan medicinal products in China.

Chen H, Xiang Y, Tang X, Hu M Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2024; 19(1):390.

PMID: 39428462 PMC: 11492536. DOI: 10.1186/s13023-024-03393-6.


Urban-rural differences in preferences for traditional Chinese medicine services among chronic disease patients: a discrete choice experiment.

Jiang F, Feng Y, Zong W, Xue J, Chen W, Qizhi L BMC Complement Med Ther. 2024; 24(1):369.

PMID: 39402534 PMC: 11475649. DOI: 10.1186/s12906-024-04659-z.


Better Communication for Better Management of Persons with Hemophilia: Results from a Patients'-Clinicians' Project to Address the New Therapeutic Landscape.

Banov L, Linari S, Ambroso L, Ferri Grazzi E, Gallo S, Pasqualetti P J Clin Med. 2024; 13(2).

PMID: 38276074 PMC: 10816722. DOI: 10.3390/jcm13020568.


Societal preferences for funding orphan drugs in China: An application of the discrete choice experiment method.

Tan S, Wang Y, Tang Y, Jiang R, Chen M, Chen H Front Public Health. 2022; 10:1005453.

PMID: 36579068 PMC: 9790908. DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.1005453.


References
1.
Simoens S . Pricing and reimbursement of orphan drugs: the need for more transparency. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2011; 6:42. PMC: 3132155. DOI: 10.1186/1750-1172-6-42. View

2.
Sussex J, Rollet P, Garau M, Schmitt C, Kent A, Hutchings A . A pilot study of multicriteria decision analysis for valuing orphan medicines. Value Health. 2013; 16(8):1163-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2013.10.002. View

3.
Lancsar E, Louviere J . Conducting discrete choice experiments to inform healthcare decision making: a user's guide. Pharmacoeconomics. 2008; 26(8):661-77. DOI: 10.2165/00019053-200826080-00004. View

4.
Lopez-Bastida J, Ramos-Goni J, Aranda-Reneo I, Trapero-Bertran M, Kanavos P, Rodriguez Martin B . Using a stated preference discrete choice experiment to assess societal value from the perspective of decision-makers in Europe. Does it work for rare diseases?. Health Policy. 2018; 123(2):152-158. DOI: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2018.11.015. View

5.
Krabbe P, Devlin N, Stolk E, Shah K, Oppe M, van Hout B . Multinational evidence of the applicability and robustness of discrete choice modeling for deriving EQ-5D-5L health-state values. Med Care. 2014; 52(11):935-43. PMC: 4196797. DOI: 10.1097/MLR.0000000000000178. View