14
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares

      International Journal of COPD (submit here)

      This international, peer-reviewed Open Access journal by Dove Medical Press focuses on pathophysiological processes underlying Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) interventions, patient focused education, and self-management protocols. Sign up for email alerts here.

      39,063 Monthly downloads/views I 2.893 Impact Factor I 5.2 CiteScore I 1.16 Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) I 0.804 Scimago Journal & Country Rank (SJR)

      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Evaluating Patient Preferences of Maintenance Therapy for the Treatment of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Discrete Choice Experiment in the UK, USA and Germany

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Introduction

          With increasing availability of different treatments for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), we sought to understand patient preferences for COPD treatment in the UK, USA, and Germany using a discrete choice experiment (DCE).

          Methods

          Qualitative research identified six attributes associated with COPD maintenance treatments: ease of inhaler use, exacerbation frequency, frequency of inhaler use, number of different inhalers used, side effect frequency, and out-of-pocket costs. A DCE using these attributes, with three levels each, was designed and tested through cognitive interviews and piloting. It comprised 18 choice sets, selected using a D-efficient experimental design. Demographics and disease history were collected and the final DCE survey was completed online by participants recruited from panels in the UK, USA and Germany. Responses were analyzed using mixed logit models, with results expressed as odds ratios (ORs).

          Results

          Overall, 450 participants (150 per country) completed the DCE; most (UK and Germany, 97.3%; USA, 98.0%) were included in the final analysis. Based on relative attribute importance, avoidance of side effects was found to be most important (UK: OR 11.65; USA: OR 7.17; Germany: OR 11.45; all p<0.0001), followed by the likelihood of fewer exacerbations (UK: OR 2.22; USA: OR 1.63; Germany: OR 2.54; all p<0.0001) and increased ease of use (UK: OR 1.84; USA: OR 1.84; Germany: OR 1.60; all p<0.0001). Number of inhalers, out-of-pocket costs, and frequency of inhaler use were found to be less important. Preferences were relatively consistent across the three countries. All participants required a reduction in exacerbations to accept more frequent inhaler use or use of more inhalers.

          Conclusion

          When selecting COPD treatment, individuals assigned the highest value to the avoidance of side effects, experiencing fewer exacerbations, and ease of inhaler use. Ensuring that patients’ preferences are considered may encourage treatment compliance.

          Most cited references9

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Constructing experimental designs for discrete-choice experiments: report of the ISPOR Conjoint Analysis Experimental Design Good Research Practices Task Force.

          Stated-preference methods are a class of evaluation techniques for studying the preferences of patients and other stakeholders. While these methods span a variety of techniques, conjoint-analysis methods-and particularly discrete-choice experiments (DCEs)-have become the most frequently applied approach in health care in recent years. Experimental design is an important stage in the development of such methods, but establishing a consensus on standards is hampered by lack of understanding of available techniques and software. This report builds on the previous ISPOR Conjoint Analysis Task Force Report: Conjoint Analysis Applications in Health-A Checklist: A Report of the ISPOR Good Research Practices for Conjoint Analysis Task Force. This report aims to assist researchers specifically in evaluating alternative approaches to experimental design, a difficult and important element of successful DCEs. While this report does not endorse any specific approach, it does provide a guide for choosing an approach that is appropriate for a particular study. In particular, it provides an overview of the role of experimental designs for the successful implementation of the DCE approach in health care studies, and it provides researchers with an introduction to constructing experimental designs on the basis of study objectives and the statistical model researchers have selected for the study. The report outlines the theoretical requirements for designs that identify choice-model preference parameters and summarizes and compares a number of available approaches for constructing experimental designs. The task-force leadership group met via bimonthly teleconferences and in person at ISPOR meetings in the United States and Europe. An international group of experimental-design experts was consulted during this process to discuss existing approaches for experimental design and to review the task force's draft reports. In addition, ISPOR members contributed to developing a consensus report by submitting written comments during the review process and oral comments during two forum presentations at the ISPOR 16th and 17th Annual International Meetings held in Baltimore (2011) and Washington, DC (2012). Copyright © 2013 International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            The Internal Validity of Discrete Choice Experiment Data: A Testing Tool for Quantitative Assessments

            To develop a tool for testing internal validity of discrete choice experiment (DCE) data, deploy the program, and collect summary test results from a sample of active health researchers to demonstrate the practical utility of the tool in a wide range of health applications.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Improving the quality of discrete-choice experiments in health: how can we assess validity and reliability?

              The recent endorsement of discrete-choice experiments (DCEs) and other stated-preference methods by regulatory and health technology assessment (HTA) agencies has placed a greater focus on demonstrating the validity and reliability of preference results. Areas covered: We present a practical overview of tests of validity and reliability that have been applied in the health DCE literature and explore other study qualities of DCEs. From the published literature, we identify a variety of methods to assess the validity and reliability of DCEs. We conceptualize these methods to create a conceptual model with four domains: measurement validity, measurement reliability, choice validity, and choice reliability. Each domain consists of three categories that can be assessed using one to four procedures (for a total of 24 tests). We present how these tests have been applied in the literature and direct readers to applications of these tests in the health DCE literature. Based on a stakeholder engagement exercise, we consider the importance of study characteristics beyond traditional concepts of validity and reliability. Expert commentary: We discuss study design considerations to assess the validity and reliability of a DCE, consider limitations to the current application of tests, and discuss future work to consider the quality of DCEs in healthcare.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis
                Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis
                COPD
                copd
                International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
                Dove
                1176-9106
                1178-2005
                18 March 2020
                2020
                : 15
                : 595-604
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Patient Centred Outcomes, ICON plc ., London, UK
                [2 ]Value Evidence and Outcomes, GlaxoSmithKline plc ., Brentford, UK
                [3 ]Value Evidence and Outcomes, GlaxoSmithKline plc ., Uxbridge, UK
                [4 ]Patient Centred Outcomes, ICON plc ., Gaithersburg, MD, USA
                [5 ]Patient Centred Outcomes, ICON plc ., Abingdon, UK
                [6 ]Respiratory Therapy Area, GlaxoSmithKline plc ., Brentford, UK
                [7 ]Value Evidence and Outcomes, GlaxoSmithKline plc ., Collegeville, PA, USA
                [8 ]Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University , Hamilton, ON, Canada
                Author notes
                Correspondence: Afisi S Ismaila Value Evidence and Outcomes, GlaxoSmithKline plc ., 1250 South Collegeville Road, Collegeville, PA19426-0989, USATel +1 919 932 0430 Email afisi.s.ismaila@gsk.com
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0338-1331
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1871-8710
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6087-9182
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2876-8308
                Article
                221980
                10.2147/COPD.S221980
                7094150
                9b73a756-37b7-442c-8318-7c3c278a766f
                © 2020 Lewis et al.

                This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/). By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms ( https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php).

                History
                : 04 July 2019
                : 21 February 2020
                Page count
                Figures: 3, Tables: 4, References: 20, Pages: 10
                Funding
                The study was funded by GlaxoSmithKline plc. (clinicaltrials.gov NCT03046069; GlaxoSmithKline plc. study CTT206455). Editorial support (in the form of writing assistance, collating author comments, assembling tables/figures, grammatical editing, and referencing) was provided by Molly Macpherson, BSc, of Gardiner–Caldwell Communications (Macclesfield, UK), and was funded by GlaxoSmithKline plc. Trade marks are owned by or licensed to their respective owners (the GSK group of companies or AstraZeneca PLC).
                Categories
                Original Research

                Respiratory medicine
                discrete choice experiment,dce,symptomatic chronic obstructive pulmonary disease,copd,stated-preference methods

                Comments

                Comment on this article