Search

Vera Vennedey,1 Sonja HM Derman,2 Mickaël Hiligsmann,3 Daniele Civello,1 Anja Schwalm,4 Astrid Seidl,4 Fülöp Scheibler,5 Stephanie Stock,1 Michael J Noack,2 Marion Danner1,5 1Institute for Health Economics and Clinical Epidemiology, University Hospital Cologne (AöR), Cologne, Germany; 2Department of Operative Dentistry and Periodontology, University Hospital Cologne (AöR), Cologne, Germany; 3Department of Health Services Research, CAPHRI Care and Public Health Research Institute, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands; 4Department of Health Care and Health Economics, Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG), Cologne, Germany; 5Department of Paediatrics, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein (UKSH), Kiel, Germany Background and purpose: The German Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG) previously tested two preference elicitation methods in pilot projects and regarded them as generally feasible for prioritizing outcome-specific results of benefit assessment. The present study aimed to investigate the feasibility of completing a discrete choice experiment (DCE) within 3 months and to determine the relative importance of attributes of periodontal disease and its treatment.Patients and methods: This preference elicitation was conducted alongside the IQWiG benefit assessment of systematic treatments of periodontal diseases. Attributes were defined based on the benefit assessment, literature review, and patients’ and periodontologists’ interviews. The DCE survey was completed by patients with a history of periodontal disease. Preferences were elicited for the attributes “tooth loss within next 10 years”, “own costs for treatment, follow-up visits, re-treatment”, “complaints and symptoms”, and “frequency of follow-up visits”. Patients completed a self-administered questionnaire including 12 choice tasks. Data were analyzed using a random parameters logit model. The relative attribute importance was calculated based on level ranges.Results: Within 3 months, survey development, data collection among 267 patients, data analysis, and provision of a study report could be completed. The analysis showed that tooth loss (score 0.73) was the most important attribute in patients’ decisions, followed by complaints and symptoms (0.22), frequency of follow-up visits (0.02), and costs (0.03) (relative importance scores summing up to 1).Conclusion: A preference analysis performing a DCE can be generally feasible within 3 months; however, a good research infrastructure and access to patients is required. Outcomes used in benefit assessments might need to be adapted to be used in preference analyses. Keywords: discrete choice experiment, conjoint analysis, decision making, periodontal disease, reimbursement, health technology assessment

Mandy Gutknecht,1 Marthe-Lisa Schaarschmidt,1,2 Marion Danner,3 Christine Blome,1 Matthias Augustin1 1German Center for Health Services Research in Dermatology (CVderm), Institute for Health Services Research in Dermatology and Nursing (IVDP), University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (UKE), Hamburg, Germany; 2Department of Dermatology, University Medical Center Mannheim, Heidelberg University, Mannheim, Germany; 3Institute for Health Economics and Clinical Epidemiology (IGKE), University Hospital of Cologne, Cologne, Germany Background: Psoriasis affects different aspects of health-related quality of life (eg, physical, psychological, and social impairments); these health domains can be of different importance for patients. The importance of domains can be measured with the Patient Benefit Index (PBI). This questionnaire weights the achievement of treatment goals by Likert scales (0, “not important at all” to 4, “very important”) using the Patient Needs Questionnaire (PNQ). Treatment goals assessed with the PBI have been assigned to five health domains; the importance of each domain can be calculated as the average importance of the respective treatment goals. In this study, the PBI approach of deriving importance weights is contrasted to a discrete choice experiment (DCE), in order to determine the importance of health domains in psoriasis, and to find if the resulting weights will differ when derived from these two methods.Methods: Adult patients with psoriasis completed both questionnaires (PNQ, DCE). The PBI domains were used as attributes in the DCE with the levels “did not help at all”, “helped moderately”, and “helped a lot”.Results: Using DCE, “improving physical functioning” was the most important health domain, followed by “improving psychological well-being”. Using PNQ, these domains were ranked in position two and three following “strengthening confidence in the therapy and in a possible healing”. The latter was least important using DCE. The only agreement of ranking was shown in “reducing impairments due to therapy” (position four). “Improving social functioning” was ranked in position three (DCE) and five (PNQ).Conclusion: Health domains have different importance to patients with psoriasis. Using PNQ or DCE to determine the importance of domains results in markedly different rankings; both approaches can thus not be considered equivalent. However, in this study, importance was assessed at the domain level in DCE and at the single item level in PNQ, which may have added to the differences. Keywords: conjoint analysis, Patient Benefit Index, patient-reported outcomes, preferences

Copyright of Brazilian Journal of Biology is the property of Instituto Internacional de Ecologia and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Brazilian Journal of Biology is the property of Instituto Internacional de Ecologia and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Vera Vennedey,1 Marion Danner,1 Silvia MAA Evers,2,3 Sascha Fauser,4 Stephanie Stock,1 Carmen D Dirksen,5 Mickaël Hiligsmann2 1Institute for Health Economics and Clinical Epidemiology, Cologne University Hospital, Cologne, Germany; 2Department of Health Services Research, School for Primary Care and Public Health (CAPHRI), Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands; 3Department of Public Mental Health, Trimbos Institute, Netherlands Institute of Mental Health and Addiction, Utrecht, the Netherlands; 4Department of Vitreo-Retinal Surgery, Center of Ophthalmology, Cologne University Hospital, Cologne, Germany; 5Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Medical Technology Assessment, CAPHRI, University Hospital Maastricht, Maastricht, the Netherlands Background: Age-related macular degeneration (AMD) is the leading cause of visual impairment and blindness in industrialized countries. Currently, mainly three treatment options are available, which are all intravitreal injections, but differ with regard to the frequency of injections needed, their approval status, and cost. This study aims to estimate patients’ preferences for characteristics of treatment options for neovascular AMD. Methods: An interviewer-assisted discrete choice experiment was conducted among patients suffering from AMD treated with intravitreal injections. A Bayesian efficient design was used for the development of 12 choice tasks. In each task patients indicated their preference for one out of two treatment scenarios described by the attributes: side effects, approval status, effect on visual function, injection and monitoring frequency. While answering the choice tasks, patients were asked to think aloud and explain the reasons for choosing or rejecting specific characteristics. Quantitative data were analyzed with a mixed multinomial logit model. Results: Eighty-six patients completed the questionnaire. Patients significantly preferred treatments that improve visual function, are approved, are administered in a pro re nata regimen (as needed), and are accompanied by bimonthly monitoring. Patients significantly disliked less frequent monitoring visits (every 4 months) and explained this was due to fear of deterioration being left unnoticed, and in turn experiencing disease deterioration. Significant preference heterogeneity was found for all levels except for bimonthly monitoring visits and severe, rare eye-related side effects. Patients gave clear explanations of their individual preferences during the interviews. Conclusion: Significant preference trends were discernible for the overall sample, despite the preference heterogeneity for most treatment characteristics. Patients like to be monitored and treated regularly, but not too frequently or infrequently. The results of our qualitative research facilitated the interpretation of the quantitative data collected in this study. Keywords: discrete choice experiment, patient preferences, qualitative research, age related macular degeneration, intravitreal injection