Prioritization and Refinement of Patient-Informed Value Elements As Attributes for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Treatment Preferences

Overview

Journal Patient

Specialty Health Services

Date 2021 Feb 8

PMID 33554310

Citations 2

Authors

Julia F Slejko

Yoon Duk Hong

Jamie L Sullivan

Robert M Reed

Susan dosReis

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background And Objective: Formative research studies can inform stated-preference instrument development to quantify the importance of various attributes of healthcare treatments. The objective of this study was to elicit from patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease the prioritization of an established set of patient-informed value elements.

Methods: Using an iterative mixed-methods study design, we engaged individuals living with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in Phase 1 value element elicitation and Phase 2 language refinement. Study participants were recruited from March to July 2019. Four guided activities, administered in an online instrument, elicited individual preferences for 40 disease-agnostic value elements that were aligned with treatment, outcomes, or care process. Responses from the guided activities were summarized and then presented to a patient advocate and additional patient participants for further refinement of the value elements and the phrasing.

Results: Twenty-three participants, 18 male and five female, mean age of 66 years (standard deviation = 7) were enrolled in Phase 1. Participant responses informed the selection of eight elements as the key candidates for the Phase 2 language refinement: Side Effects, New Therapeutic Option, Available Treatment, Appropriateness of Care, Predictable Healthcare Needs, Physical Activities: Endurance and Symptom Control, and Explanation of Treatment. With feedback from a patient advocate and additional patient participants, elements were refined, rephrased, or modified and this list was narrowed to six value elements (Side Effects, New Therapeutic Option, Willingness to Pay, Physical Activities, Explanation of Treatment, and Access to Care) to serve as attributes in a conceptual framework for a future quantitative stated-preference instrument.

Conclusions: This patient-engaged formative work identified patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease key attributes of value-based decision making that underpin benefit-risk trade-offs between physical endurance, treatment side effects, care access, and cost. This study illustrates an iterative process for eliciting and refining a comprehensive list of value elements, resulting in a subgroup of elements important to a specific patient population.

Citing Articles

Commentary: Advocating for patient and public involvement and engagement in health economic evaluation.

Staniszewska S, Jakab I, Low E, Mossman J, Posner P, Husereau D Res Involv Engagem. 2023; 9(1):45.

PMID: 37400923 PMC: 10316557. DOI: 10.1186/s40900-023-00444-3.

The immaturity of patient engagement in value-based healthcare-A systematic review.

van der Voorden M, Sipma W, de Jong M, Franx A, Ahaus K Front Public Health. 2023; 11:1144027.

PMID: 37250089 PMC: 10213745. DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2023.1144027.

References

Lortet-Tieulent J, Soerjomataram I, Lopez-Campos J, Ancochea J, Coebergh J, Soriano J . International trends in COPD mortality, 1995-2017. Eur Respir J. 2019; 54(6). DOI: 10.1183/13993003.01791-2019. View

Zafari Z, Bryan S, Sin D, Conte T, Khakban R, Sadatsafavi M . A Systematic Review of Health Economics Simulation Models of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease. Value Health. 2017; 20(1):152-162. DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2016.08.003. View

Bereza B, Troelsgaard Nielsen A, Valgardsson S, Hemels M, Einarson T . Patient preferences in severe COPD and asthma: a comprehensive literature review. Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis. 2015; 10:739-44. PMC: 4399696. DOI: 10.2147/COPD.S82179. View

Zhang Y, Morgan R, Alonso-Coello P, Wiercioch W, Bala M, Jaeschke R . A systematic review of how patients value COPD outcomes. Eur Respir J. 2018; 52(1). DOI: 10.1183/13993003.00222-2018. View

Cook N, Cave J, Holtorf A . Patient Preference Studies During Early Drug Development: Aligning Stakeholders to Ensure Development Plans Meet Patient Needs. Front Med (Lausanne). 2019; 6:82. PMC: 6491461. DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2019.00082. View

dosReis S, Butler B, Caicedo J, Kennedy A, Hong Y, Zhang C . Stakeholder-Engaged Derivation of Patient-Informed Value Elements. Patient. 2020; 13(5):611-621. PMC: 7479003. DOI: 10.1007/s40271-020-00433-8. View

Coast J, Horrocks S . Developing attributes and levels for discrete choice experiments using qualitative methods. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2007; 12(1):25-30. DOI: 10.1258/135581907779497602. View

Hollin I, Craig B, Coast J, Beusterien K, Vass C, DiSantostefano R . Reporting Formative Qualitative Research to Support the Development of Quantitative Preference Study Protocols and Corresponding Survey Instruments: Guidelines for Authors and Reviewers. Patient. 2019; 13(1):121-136. DOI: 10.1007/s40271-019-00401-x. View

Coast J, Al-Janabi H, Sutton E, Horrocks S, Vosper A, Swancutt D . Using qualitative methods for attribute development for discrete choice experiments: issues and recommendations. Health Econ. 2011; 21(6):730-41. DOI: 10.1002/hec.1739. View

10.

dosReis S, Camelo Castillo W, Ross M, Fitz-Randolph M, Vaughn-Lee A, Butler B . Attribute Development Using Continuous Stakeholder Engagement to Prioritize Treatment Decisions: A Framework for Patient-Centered Research. Value Health. 2016; 19(6):758-766. DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2016.02.013. View

11.

Svedsater H, Leather D, Robinson T, Doll H, Nafees B, Bradshaw L . Evaluation and quantification of treatment preferences for patients with asthma or COPD using discrete choice experiment surveys. Respir Med. 2017; 132:76-83. DOI: 10.1016/j.rmed.2017.09.010. View

12.

Goossens L, Molken M, Boland M, Donkers B, Jonker M, Slok A . ABC Index: quantifying experienced burden of COPD in a discrete choice experiment and predicting costs. BMJ Open. 2017; 7(12):e017831. PMC: 5770840. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-017831. View

13.

Disler R, Green A, Luckett T, Newton P, Inglis S, Currow D . Experience of advanced chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: metasynthesis of qualitative research. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2014; 48(6):1182-99. DOI: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2014.03.009. View

14.

Kawata A, Kleinman L, Harding G, Ramachandran S . Evaluation of patient preference and willingness to pay for attributes of maintenance medication for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Patient. 2014; 7(4):413-26. PMC: 4240911. DOI: 10.1007/s40271-014-0064-1. View

15.

Tervonen T, Hawken N, Hanania N, Martinez F, Heidenreich S, Gilbert I . Maintenance inhaler therapy preferences of patients with asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a discrete choice experiment. Thorax. 2020; 75(9):735-743. PMC: 7476258. DOI: 10.1136/thoraxjnl-2019-213974. View

16.

Hawken N, Torvinen S, Neine M, Amri I, Toumi M, Aballea S . Patient preferences for dry powder inhaler attributes in asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in France: a discrete choice experiment. BMC Pulm Med. 2017; 17(1):99. PMC: 5501405. DOI: 10.1186/s12890-017-0439-x. View

17.

Bridges J, Kinter E, Kidane L, Heinzen R, McCormick C . Things are Looking up Since We Started Listening to Patients: Trends in the Application of Conjoint Analysis in Health 1982-2007. Patient. 2012; 1(4):273-82. DOI: 10.2165/01312067-200801040-00009. View

18.

Slejko J, Mattingly 2nd T, Daniel Mullins C, Perfetto E, dosReis S . Future of Patients in Healthcare Evaluation: The Patient-Informed Reference Case. Value Health. 2019; 22(5):545-548. DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2019.02.003. View

19.

Mott D . Incorporating Quantitative Patient Preference Data into Healthcare Decision Making Processes: Is HTA Falling Behind?. Patient. 2018; 11(3):249-252. DOI: 10.1007/s40271-018-0305-9. View

20.

Cazzola M, MacNee W, Martinez F, Rabe K, Franciosi L, Barnes P . Outcomes for COPD pharmacological trials: from lung function to biomarkers. Eur Respir J. 2008; 31(2):416-69. DOI: 10.1183/09031936.00099306. View