Patients' preferences for the treatment of anxiety and depressive disorders: a systematic review of discrete choice experiments

被引:28
作者
Tunnessen, Maike [1 ]
Hiligsmann, Mickael [2 ]
Stock, Stephanie [3 ]
Vennedey, Vera [3 ]
机构
[1] Maastricht Univ, Fac Hlth Med & Life Sci, Maastricht, Netherlands
[2] Maastricht Univ, CAPHRI Care & Publ Hlth Res Inst, Dept Hlth Serv Res, Maastricht, Netherlands
[3] Univ Cologne, Inst Hlth Econ & Clin Epidemiol, Cologne, Germany
关键词
Depression; anxiety disorder; discrete-choice experiment; patient preference; mental health; HEALTH-CARE; CONJOINT-ANALYSIS; GLOBAL BURDEN; ATTRIBUTES; DISEASE; COST;
D O I
10.1080/13696998.2020.1725022
中图分类号
F [经济];
学科分类号
02 ;
摘要
Introduction: Matching available mental health services to patients' preferences, as well as is possible, may increase patient satisfaction and help increase adherence to certain treatments. This study systematically reviewed discrete-choice experiments (DCEs) on patients' preferences for treatment of depressive and anxiety disorders and assessed the relative importance of outcome, process and cost attributes to improve the current and future treatment situations. Methods: A systematic literature review using PubMed, EMBASE and PsychInfo was conducted to retrieve all relevant DCEs published up to 15 April 2019, eliciting patient preferences for treatment of depressive and anxiety disorders. Data were extracted using an extraction sheet, and attributes were classified into outcome, process and cost attributes. The relative importance of each attribute category was then assessed, and studies were evaluated according to their reporting quality, using validated checklists. Results: A total of 11 studies were identified for qualitative analysis. All studies received an aggregate score of 4 on the five-point PREFS checklist (Purpose, Respondents, Explanation, Findings and Significance). Most attributes were outcome related (52%), followed by process (42%) and cost (6%) attributes. Comparing the attribute categories and summing up the relative importance weights for each category within the studies, process attributes were ranked as most important, followed by cost and outcome attributes. Conclusions: In this systematic review, heterogeneous results were observed regarding the inclusion and framing of different attributes across studies. Overall, patients considered process and cost attributes to be more important than outcome attributes. Outcomes and process are important for patients, and thus clinicians should be particularly aware of this and take patients' preferences into account, although the attribute importance may depend on chosen attributes and related levels.
引用
收藏
页码:546 / 556
页数:11
相关论文
共 58 条
[1]   Population level of unmet need for mental healthcare in Europe [J].
Alonso, J. ;
Codony, M. ;
Kovess, V. ;
Angermeyer, M. C. ;
Katz, S. J. ;
Haro, J. M. ;
De Girolamo, G. ;
De Graaf, R. ;
Demyttenaere, K. ;
Vilagut, G. ;
Almansa, J. ;
Lepine, J. Pierre ;
Brugha, T. S. .
BRITISH JOURNAL OF PSYCHIATRY, 2007, 190 :299-306
[2]   The global burden of anxiety disorders in 2010 [J].
Baxter, A. J. ;
Vos, T. ;
Scott, K. M. ;
Ferrari, A. J. ;
Whiteford, H. A. .
PSYCHOLOGICAL MEDICINE, 2014, 44 (11) :2363-2374
[3]   Patients' Preferences for Outcome, Process and Cost Attributes in Cancer Treatment: A Systematic Review of Discrete Choice Experiments [J].
Bien, Daniela R. ;
Danner, Marion ;
Vennedey, Vera ;
Civello, Daniele ;
Evers, Silvia M. ;
Hiligsmann, Mickael .
PATIENT-PATIENT CENTERED OUTCOMES RESEARCH, 2017, 10 (05) :553-565
[4]   Conjoint Analysis Applications in Health-a Checklist: A Report of the ISPOR Good Research Practices for Conjoint Analysis Task Force [J].
Bridges, John F. P. ;
Hauber, A. Brett ;
Marshall, Deborah ;
Lloyd, Andrew ;
Prosser, Lisa A. ;
Regier, Dean A. ;
Johnson, F. Reed ;
Mauskopf, Josephine .
VALUE IN HEALTH, 2011, 14 (04) :403-413
[5]   A Common Nomenclature for Stated Preference Elicitation Approaches [J].
Carson, Richard T. ;
Louviere, Jordan J. .
ENVIRONMENTAL & RESOURCE ECONOMICS, 2011, 49 (04) :539-559
[6]   Scaling-up treatment of depression and anxiety: a global return on investment analysis [J].
Chisholm, Dan ;
Sweeny, Kim ;
Sheehan, Peter ;
Rasmussen, Bruce ;
Smit, Filip ;
Cuijpers, Pim ;
Saxena, Shekhar .
LANCET PSYCHIATRY, 2016, 3 (05) :415-424
[7]   Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: A Review of the Literature [J].
Clark, Michael D. ;
Determann, Domino ;
Petrou, Stavros ;
Moro, Domenico ;
de Bekker-Grob, Esther W. .
PHARMACOECONOMICS, 2014, 32 (09) :883-902
[8]   Using qualitative methods for attribute development for discrete choice experiments: issues and recommendations [J].
Coast, Joanna ;
Al-Janabi, Hareth ;
Sutton, Eileen J. ;
Horrocks, Susan A. ;
Vosper, A. Jane ;
Swancutt, Dawn R. ;
Flynn, Terry N. .
HEALTH ECONOMICS, 2012, 21 (06) :730-741
[9]   Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature [J].
de Bekker-Grob, Esther W. ;
Ryan, Mandy ;
Gerard, Karen .
HEALTH ECONOMICS, 2012, 21 (02) :145-172
[10]  
Dexter Paul R, 2010, AMIA Annu Symp Proc, V2010, P162