Design, Conduct, and Use of Patient Preference Studies in the Medical Product Life Cycle: A Multi-Method StudyMuscular Dystrophy UK, London, United Kingdom.
John Walton Muscular Dystrophy Research Centre, Newcastle University, Newcastle, United Kingdom.
Pfizer, Tadworth, United Kingdom.
Applied Research Division for Cognitive and Psychological Science, European Institute of Oncology, Milan, Italy.
Applied Research Division for Cognitive and Psychological Science, European Institute of Oncology, Milan, Italy; Department of Oncology and Hematology Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and Surgery, University of Milan, Milan, Italy.
Applied Research Division for Cognitive and Psychological Science, European Institute of Oncology, Milan, Italy; Department of Oncology and Hematology Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and Surgery, University of Milan, Milan, Italy.
Applied Research Division for Cognitive and Psychological Science, European Institute of Oncology, Milan, Italy; Department of Oncology and Hematology Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and Surgery, University of Milan, Milan, Italy.
Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre, Brussels, Belgium.
Clinical Pharmacology and Pharmacotherapy, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Quantitative Scientific Consulting, Marburg, Germany.
Sanofi, Bridgewater, NJ, United States.
Janssen Research & Development, Titusville, NJ, United States.
School of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
School of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
Clinical Pharmacology and Pharmacotherapy, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Show others and affiliations
2019 (English)In: Frontiers in Pharmacology, E-ISSN 1663-9812, Vol. 10, no 1395Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]
Objectives: To investigate stakeholder perspectives on how patient preference studies (PPS) should be designed and conducted to allow for inclusion of patient preferences in decision-making along the medical product life cycle (MPLC), and how patient preferences can be used in such decision-making.
Methods: Two literature reviews and semi-structured interviews (n = 143) with healthcare stakeholders in Europe and the US were conducted; results of these informed the design of focus group guides. Eight focus groups were conducted with European patients, industry representatives and regulators, and with US regulators and European/Canadian health technology assessment (HTA) representatives. Focus groups were analyzed thematically using NVivo.
Results: Stakeholder perspectives on how PPS should be designed and conducted were as follows: 1) study design should be informed by the research questions and patient population; 2) preferred treatment attributes and levels, as well as trade-offs among attributes and levels should be investigated; 3) the patient sample and method should match the MPLC phase; 4) different stakeholders should collaborate; and 5) results from PPS should be shared with relevant stakeholders. The value of patient preferences in decision-making was found to increase with the level of patient preference sensitivity of decisions on medical products. Stakeholders mentioned that patient preferences are hardly used in current decision-making. Potential applications for patient preferences across industry, regulatory and HTA processes were identified. Four applications seemed most promising for systematic integration of patient preferences: 1) benefit-risk assessment by industry and regulators at the marketing-authorization phase; 2) assessment of major contribution to patient care by European regulators; 3) cost-effectiveness analysis; and 4) multi criteria decision analysis in HTA.
Conclusions: The value of patient preferences for decision-making depends on the level of collaboration across stakeholders; the match between the research question, MPLC phase, sample, and preference method used in PPS; and the sensitivity of the decision regarding a medical product to patient preferences. Promising applications for patient preferences should be further explored with stakeholders to optimize their inclusion in decision-making.
Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2019. Vol. 10, no 1395
Keywords [en]
patient preferences, medical products, decision-making, health technology assessment, marketing authorization
National Category
Social and Clinical Pharmacy
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:mdh:diva-62346DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2019.01395ISI: 000505681700001PubMedID: 31849657Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-85077128446OAI: oai:DiVA.org:mdh-62346DiVA, id: diva2:1753466
Projects
IMI-PREFER
Note
Jorien Veldwijk and Isabelle Huys share last authorship.
2023-04-272023-04-272024-01-17Bibliographically approved