Search

Abstract Background Antipsychotic medications are effective treatments for schizophrenia (SZ) and bipolar I disorder (BD-I), but when presented with different treatment options, there are tradeoffs that individuals make between clinical improvement and adverse effects. As new options become available, understanding the attributes of antipsychotic medications that are valued and the tradeoffs that individuals consider when choosing among them is important. Methods A discrete-choice experiment (DCE) was administered online to elicit preferences across 5 attributes of oral antipsychotics: treatment efficacy (i.e., improvement in symptom severity), weight gain over 6 months, sexual dysfunction, sedation, and akathisia. Eligible respondents were aged 18–64 years with a self-reported clinician diagnosis of SZ or BD-I. Results In total, 144 respondents with SZ and 152 with BD-I completed the DCE. Of those with SZ, 50% identified themselves as female and 69.4% as White, with a mean (SD) age of 41.0 (10.1) years. Of those with BD-I, most identified themselves as female (69.7%) and as White (77.6%), with a mean (SD) age of 40.0 (10.7) years. In both cohorts, respondents preferred oral antipsychotics with better efficacy, less weight gain, no sexual dysfunction or akathisia, and lower risk of sedation. Treatment efficacy was the most important attribute, with a conditional relative importance (CRI) of 31.4% for respondents with SZ and 31.0% for those with BD-I. Weight gain (CRI = 21.3% and 23.1%, respectively) and sexual dysfunction (CRI = 23.4% and 19.2%, respectively) were adverse effects in this study that respondents most wanted to avoid. Respondents with SZ were willing to accept 9.8 lb of weight gain or > 25% risk of sedation for symptom improvement; those with BD-I were willing to accept 8.5 lb of weight gain or a > 25% risk of sedation. Conclusions In this DCE, treatment efficacy was the most important attribute of oral antipsychotic medications among respondents with SZ and BD-I. Weight gain and sexual dysfunction were the adverse effects respondents most wanted to avoid; however, both cohorts were willing to accept some weight gain or sedation to obtain better efficacy. These results highlight features that patients value in antipsychotic medications and how they balance benefits and risks when choosing among treatments.

Abstract Background This study aimed to elicit and quantify preferences for treatments for juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA). Methods We conducted a discrete-choice experiment among adolescents with JIA in the United States (US) (n = 197) and United Kingdom (UK) (n = 100) and caregivers of children with JIA in the US (n = 207) and UK (n = 200). In a series of questions, respondents chose between experimentally designed profiles for hypothetical JIA treatments that varied in efficacy (symptom control; time until next flare-up), side effects (stomachache, nausea, and vomiting; headaches), mode and frequency of administration, and the need for combination therapy. Using a random-parameters logit model, we estimated preference weights for these attributes, from which we derived their conditional relative importance. Results On average, respondents preferred greater symptom control; greater time until the next flare-up; less stomachache, nausea, and vomiting; and fewer headaches. However, adolescents and caregivers in the US were generally indifferent across varying modes and frequencies of administration. UK adolescents and caregivers preferred tablets, syrup, or injections to intravenous infusions. US and UK adolescents were indifferent between treatment with monotherapy or combination therapy; caregivers in the UK preferred treatment with combination therapy to monotherapy. Subgroup analysis showed preference heterogeneity across characteristics including gender, treatment experience, and symptom experience in both adolescents and caregivers. Conclusions Improved symptom control, prolonged time to next flare-up, and avoidance of adverse events such as headache, stomachache, nausea, and vomiting are desirable characteristics of treatment regimens for adolescents with JIA and their caregivers.

Abstract Background There are increasing examples of linking data on healthcare resource use and patient outcomes from different sectors of health and social care systems. Linked data are generally anonymised, meaning in most jurisdictions there are no legal restrictions to their use in research conducted by public or private organisations. Secondary use of anonymised linked data is contentious in some jurisdictions but other jurisdictions are known for their use of linked data. The publics’ perceptions of the acceptability of using linked data is likely to depend on a number of factors. This study aimed to quantify the preferences of the public to understand the factors that affected views about types of linked data and its use in two jurisdictions. Method An online discrete choice experiment (DCE) previously conducted in Scotland was adapted and replicated in Sweden. The DCE was designed, comprising five attributes, to elicit the preferences from a representative sample of the public in both jurisdictions. The five attributes (number of levels) were: type of researcher using linked data (four); type of data being linked (four); purpose of the research (three); use of profit from using linked data (four); who oversees the research (four). Each DCE contained 6 choice-sets asking respondents to select their preferred option from two scenarios or state neither were acceptable. Background questions included socio-demographics. DCE data were analysed using conditional and heteroskedastic conditional logit models to create forecasts of acceptability. Results The study sample comprised members of the public living in Scotland (n = 1004) and Sweden (n = 974). All five attributes were important in driving respondents’ choices. Swedish and Scottish preferences were mostly homogenous with the exception of ‘who oversees the research using linked data’, which had relatively less impact on the choices observed from Scotland. For a defined ‘typical’ linked data scenario, the probability (on average) of acceptance was 85.7% in Sweden and 82.4% in Scotland. Conclusion This study suggests that the public living in Scotland and Sweden are open to using anonymised linked data in certain scenarios for research purposes but some caution is advisable if the anonymised linked data joins health to non-health data.