0.0001) versus other attributes, as well as lower risk of flares (10%, likelihood ratio: 0.64–0.70). Conclusions: Findings indicate that self-reported adherers to UC therapy have a stronger preference for clinical benefits over other treatment attributes, suggesting that positive patient assessment of effectiveness may influence adherence. Ongoing clinician assessment of patient preferences for treatment attributes, as well as education on the importance of adherence, may help improve treatment outcomes in UC. Copyright Adis Data Information BV 2012"> 0.0001) versus other attributes, as well as lower risk of flares (10%, likelihood ratio: 0.64–0.70). Conclusions: Findings indicate that self-reported adherers to UC therapy have a stronger preference for clinical benefits over other treatment attributes, suggesting that positive patient assessment of effectiveness may influence adherence. Ongoing clinician assessment of patient preferences for treatment attributes, as well as education on the importance of adherence, may help improve treatment outcomes in UC. Copyright Adis Data Information BV 2012">
lynx   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/patien/v5y2012i1p33-44.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Patient Preferences for First-Line Oral Treatment for Mild-to-Moderate Ulcerative Colitis

Author

Listed:
  • Paul Hodgkins
  • Paul Swinburn
  • Dory Solomon
  • Linnette Yen
  • Sarah Dewilde
  • Andrew Lloyd
Abstract
Background: Patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) frequently require long-term therapy to prevent relapse. Treatments such as 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA [mesalazine]) are efficacious and well tolerated, but adherence to treatment is often poor. Objective: This discrete-choice experiment (DCE) was conducted to estimate differences in patient preferences for 5-ASA treatment in mild-to-moderate UC based on levels of self-reported adherence. Inclusion of patients residing in the US, UK, Germany, and Canada allowed for assessment of possible cultural differences in patient preferences. Methods: DCE attributes were determined through literature review, clinician consultation, and patient interviews. Six treatment attributes were identified: ease of swallowing, time of day, quantity, extent of flare resolution, likelihood of flare occurrence, and cost. A total of 400 patients in four countries completed the DCE and adherence (Modified Morisky Scale) surveys. Data were analyzed using generalized estimating equations to estimate patient preference and willingness to pay (WTP) by levels of self-reported adherence and country of residence. Results: All attributes had expected polarity and were significant predictors of patient preference. Self-reported ‘good’ versus ‘poor’ adherers significantly preferred symptom control (p=0.0108) and mucosal healing (p=0.0190) attributes. All patients stated preference for symptom control/mucosal healing and flare risk attributes; the latter attribute was significantly preferred across all countries. Country differences in patient preference for convenience versus clinical attributes were found. Overall, patients were willing to pay £29.24 ($US46.27) per month for symptom control and mucosal healing, and an additional £78.81 ($US124.70) per month for reduction in flare risk to 10% per year (WTP costs were equalized between each country using the published 2008 purchasing power parity). Those with flares in the past year significantly preferred avoiding future flares (p > 0.0001) versus other attributes, as well as lower risk of flares (10%, likelihood ratio: 0.64–0.70). Conclusions: Findings indicate that self-reported adherers to UC therapy have a stronger preference for clinical benefits over other treatment attributes, suggesting that positive patient assessment of effectiveness may influence adherence. Ongoing clinician assessment of patient preferences for treatment attributes, as well as education on the importance of adherence, may help improve treatment outcomes in UC. Copyright Adis Data Information BV 2012

Suggested Citation

  • Paul Hodgkins & Paul Swinburn & Dory Solomon & Linnette Yen & Sarah Dewilde & Andrew Lloyd, 2012. "Patient Preferences for First-Line Oral Treatment for Mild-to-Moderate Ulcerative Colitis," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 5(1), pages 33-44, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:patien:v:5:y:2012:i:1:p:33-44
    DOI: 10.2165/11595390-000000000-00000
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.2165/11595390-000000000-00000
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.2165/11595390-000000000-00000?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. John Bridges & Elizabeth Kinter & Lillian Kidane & Rebekah Heinzen & Colleen McCormick, 2008. "Things are Looking up Since We Started Listening to Patients," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 1(4), pages 273-282, October.
    2. Scott, Anthony & Watson, M. Stuart & Ross, Sue, 2003. "Eliciting preferences of the community for out of hours care provided by general practitioners: a stated preference discrete choice experiment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 56(4), pages 803-814, February.
    3. McIntosh, Emma & Clarke, Philip & Frew, Emma & Louviere, Jordan (ed.), 2010. "Applied Methods of Cost-Benefit Analysis in Health Care," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199237128, Decembrie.
    4. Hall, Jane & Fiebig, Denzil G. & King, Madeleine T. & Hossain, Ishrat & Louviere, Jordan J., 2006. "What influences participation in genetic carrier testing?: Results from a discrete choice experiment," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(3), pages 520-537, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Marta Trapero-Bertran & Beatriz Rodríguez-Martín & Julio López-Bastida, 2019. "What attributes should be included in a discrete choice experiment related to health technologies? A systematic literature review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(7), pages 1-15, July.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Umberger, Wendy J. & Calkins, Chris R., 2008. "Korean Consumers’ Preferences and Willingness to Pay for Domestic versus U.S. and Australian Beef with Alternative Attributes," 2008 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2008, Orlando, Florida 6172, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    2. Chiara Seghieri & Alessandro Mengoni & Sabina Nuti, 2014. "Applying discrete choice modelling in a priority setting: an investigation of public preferences for primary care models," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 15(7), pages 773-785, September.
    3. Robert W. Paterson & Kevin J. Boyle & Christopher F. Parmeter & James E. Neumann & Paul De Civita, 2008. "Heterogeneity in preferences for smoking cessation," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 17(12), pages 1363-1377, December.
    4. Charles Cunningham & Ken Deal & Yvonne Chen, 2010. "Adaptive Choice-Based Conjoint Analysis," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 3(4), pages 257-273, December.
    5. Marsha Wittink & Mark Cary & Thomas TenHave & Jonathan Baron & Joseph Gallo, 2010. "Towards Patient-Centered Care for Depression," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 3(3), pages 145-157, September.
    6. Stephanie Knox & Rosalie Viney & Deborah Street & Marion Haas & Denzil Fiebig & Edith Weisberg & Deborah Bateson, 2012. "What’s Good and Bad About Contraceptive Products?," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 30(12), pages 1187-1202, December.
    7. Lindgren, Petter Y. & Presterud, Ane Ofstad, 2021. "Expanding the Norwegian Armed Forces in the Time of Corona: Benefit-Cost Analysis in the Context of High Unemployment Rate," MPRA Paper 106405, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. Rosalie Viney & Richard Norman & John Brazier & Paula Cronin & Madeleine T. King & Julie Ratcliffe & Deborah Street, 2014. "An Australian Discrete Choice Experiment To Value Eq‐5d Health States," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 23(6), pages 729-742, June.
    9. Hassan, Alhassan Yosri Ibrahim & Cucculelli, Marco & Lamura, Giovanni, 2023. "Caregivers’ willingness to pay for digital support services: Comparative survey," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 130(C).
    10. Arne Hole & Julie Kolstad, 2012. "Mixed logit estimation of willingness to pay distributions: a comparison of models in preference and WTP space using data from a health-related choice experiment," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 42(2), pages 445-469, April.
    11. Afentoula G. Mavrodi & Vassilis H. Aletras, 2019. "Preliminary Results of a Healthcare Contingent Valuation Study in Greece," International Journal of Finance, Insurance and Risk Management, International Journal of Finance, Insurance and Risk Management, vol. 9(3-4), pages 3-16.
    12. Ateesha Mohamed & A. Hauber & Maureen Neary, 2011. "Patient Benefit-Risk Preferences for Targeted Agents in the Treatment of Renal Cell Carcinoma," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 29(11), pages 977-988, November.
    13. Arouna, Aminou & Adegbola, Patrice Y. & Raphael, Babatunde & Diagne, Aliou, 2015. "Contract farming preferences by smallholder rice producers in Africa: a stated choice model using mixed logic," 2015 Conference, August 9-14, 2015, Milan, Italy 210957, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    14. Mark Sculpher & Karl Claxton, 2012. "Real Economics Needs to Reflect Real Decisions," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 133-136, February.
    15. Patricia Kenny & Stephen Goodall & Deborah J. Street & Jessica Greene, 2017. "Choosing a Doctor: Does Presentation Format Affect the Way Consumers Use Health Care Performance Information?," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 10(6), pages 739-751, December.
    16. Bahamonde-Birke, Francisco J. & Hanappi, Tibor, 2016. "The potential of electromobility in Austria: Evidence from hybrid choice models under the presence of unreported information," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 30-41.
    17. Francisco J. Bahamonde-Birke & Tibor Hanappi, 2015. "The Potential of Electromobility in Austria: An Analysis Based on Hybrid Choice Models," Discussion Papers of DIW Berlin 1472, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.
    18. Chung, Sol & Agnew, Julie & Bateman, Hazel & Eckert, Christine & Liu, Junhao & Thorp, Susan, 2024. "The impact of mortgage broker use on borrower confusion and preferences," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 224(C), pages 229-247.
    19. Di Giacomo, Marina & Piacenza, Massimiliano & Siciliani, Luigi & Turati, Gilberto, 2022. "The effect of co-payments on the take-up of prenatal tests," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 81(C).
    20. Rhiannon Tudor Edwards & Catherine Louise Lawrence, 2021. "‘What You See is All There is’: The Importance of Heuristics in Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA) and Social Return on Investment (SROI) in the Evaluation of Public Health Interventions," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 19(5), pages 653-664, September.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:patien:v:5:y:2012:i:1:p:33-44. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.
    Лучший частный хостинг