Skip to main content
Top
Published in: BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making 1/2020

Open Access 01-12-2020 | Research article

Appraising patient preference methods for decision-making in the medical product lifecycle: an empirical comparison

Authors: Chiara Whichello, Bennett Levitan, Juhaeri Juhaeri, Vaishali Patadia, Rachael DiSantostefano, Cathy Anne Pinto, Esther W. de Bekker-Grob

Published in: BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making | Issue 1/2020

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Incorporating patient preference (PP) information into decision-making has become increasingly important to many stakeholders. However, there is little guidance on which patient preference assessment methods, including preference exploration (qualitative) and elicitation (quantitative) methods, are most suitable for decision-making at different stages in the medical product lifecycle (MPLC). This study aimed to use an empirical approach to assess which attributes of PP assessment methods are most important, and to identify which methods are most suitable, for decision-makers’ needs during different stages in the MPLC.

Methods

A four-step cumulative approach was taken: 1) Identify important criteria to appraise methods through a Q-methodology exercise, 2) Determine numerical weights to ascertain the relative importance of each criterion through an analytical hierarchy process, 3) Assess the performance of 33 PP methods by applying these weights, consulting international health preference research experts and review of literature, and 4) Compare and rank the methods within taxonomy groups reflecting their similar techniques to identify the most promising methods.

Results

The Q-methodology exercise was completed by 54 stakeholders with PP study experience, and the analytical hierarchy process was completed by 85 stakeholders with PP study experience. Additionally, 17 health preference research experts were consulted to assess the performance of the PP methods. Thirteen promising preference exploration and elicitation methods were identified as likely to meet decision-makers’ needs. Additionally, eight other methods that decision-makers might consider were identified, although they appeared appropriate only for some stages of the MPLC.

Conclusions

This transparent, weighted approach to the comparison of methods supports decision-makers and researchers in selecting PP methods most appropriate for a given application.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Meredith Y, Tarek A, Marilyn M, Bennett L, Rebecca N, Anne M, et al. Patient engagement at a tipping point—the need for cultural change across patient, sponsor, and regulator stakeholders: insights from the DIA conference. Thrapeutic Innov Regul Sci. 2016;50(5):546–53. Meredith Y, Tarek A, Marilyn M, Bennett L, Rebecca N, Anne M, et al. Patient engagement at a tipping point—the need for cultural change across patient, sponsor, and regulator stakeholders: insights from the DIA conference. Thrapeutic Innov Regul Sci. 2016;50(5):546–53.
2.
go back to reference FDA, “Patient Preference Information – Voluntary Submission, Review in Premarket Approval Applications, Humanitarian Device Exemption Applications, and De Novo Requests, and Inclusion in Decision Summaries and Device Labeling;” 2016. Docket Number: FDA-2015-D-1580, 2016. FDA, “Patient Preference Information – Voluntary Submission, Review in Premarket Approval Applications, Humanitarian Device Exemption Applications, and De Novo Requests, and Inclusion in Decision Summaries and Device Labeling;” 2016. Docket Number: FDA-2015-D-1580, 2016.
3.
go back to reference Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH), “Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff: Factors to Conider When Making Benefit-Risk Determinations in Medical Device Premarket Approval and De Novo Classifications,” Food and Drug Administration (FDA); 2016. Docket No. FDA-2011-D-0577, 2012. Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH), “Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff: Factors to Conider When Making Benefit-Risk Determinations in Medical Device Premarket Approval and De Novo Classifications,” Food and Drug Administration (FDA); 2016. Docket No. FDA-2011-D-0577, 2012.
4.
go back to reference Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH), “Factors to consider when making benefit-risk determinations for medical device investigational device exemptions,” Food and Drug Administration (FDA); 2017. Docket No. FDA-2015-D-1777, 2017. Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH), “Factors to consider when making benefit-risk determinations for medical device investigational device exemptions,” Food and Drug Administration (FDA); 2017. Docket No. FDA-2015-D-1777, 2017.
5.
go back to reference Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH), “Factors to Consider Regarding BenefitRisk in Medical Device Product Availability, Compliance, and Enforcement Decisions,” Food and Drug Administration (FDA); 2016. Docket No. FDA-2016-D-1495, 2016. Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH), “Factors to Consider Regarding BenefitRisk in Medical Device Product Availability, Compliance, and Enforcement Decisions,” Food and Drug Administration (FDA); 2016. Docket No. FDA-2016-D-1495, 2016.
6.
go back to reference Ho M, Gonzalez J, Lerner H, Newuland C, Whang J, McMurry-Heath M, et al. Incorporating patient-preference evidence into regulatory decision making. Surg Endosc. 2015;29(10):2984–93.PubMed Ho M, Gonzalez J, Lerner H, Newuland C, Whang J, McMurry-Heath M, et al. Incorporating patient-preference evidence into regulatory decision making. Surg Endosc. 2015;29(10):2984–93.PubMed
7.
go back to reference European Medicines Agency (EMA), “European Medicines Agency’s interaction with patients, consumers, healthcare professionals and their organisations,” European Medicines Agency (EMA); 2016. EMA/260003/2016. European Medicines Agency (EMA), “European Medicines Agency’s interaction with patients, consumers, healthcare professionals and their organisations,” European Medicines Agency (EMA); 2016. EMA/260003/2016.
10.
go back to reference de Bekker-Grob E, Berlin C, Levitan B, Raza K, ChristoforidiIrina K, Cleemput I, et al. Giving patients’ preferences a voice in medical treatment life cycle: the PREFER public–private project. Patient. 2017;10(3):263–6.PubMed de Bekker-Grob E, Berlin C, Levitan B, Raza K, ChristoforidiIrina K, Cleemput I, et al. Giving patients’ preferences a voice in medical treatment life cycle: the PREFER public–private project. Patient. 2017;10(3):263–6.PubMed
11.
go back to reference van Overbeeke E, Whichello C, Janssens R, Veldwijk J, Cleemput I, Simoens S, et al. Factors and situations influencing the value of patient preference studies along the medical product lifecycle: a literature review. Drug Discov Today. 2019;24(1):57–68.PubMed van Overbeeke E, Whichello C, Janssens R, Veldwijk J, Cleemput I, Simoens S, et al. Factors and situations influencing the value of patient preference studies along the medical product lifecycle: a literature review. Drug Discov Today. 2019;24(1):57–68.PubMed
12.
go back to reference Soekhai V, Whichello C, Levitan B, Veldwijk J, Pinto C, Gonzalez J, et al. “Compendium of methods for exploring and eliciting patient preferences in the drug and medical device lifecycle”. Drug discovery today; 2019. Soekhai V, Whichello C, Levitan B, Veldwijk J, Pinto C, Gonzalez J, et al. “Compendium of methods for exploring and eliciting patient preferences in the drug and medical device lifecycle”. Drug discovery today; 2019.
13.
go back to reference Ryan M, Scott D, Reeves C, Bate A, van Teijlingen E, Russell E, et al. Eliciting public preferences for healthcare: a systematic review of techniques. Health Technol Assess. 2001;5(5):1–186.PubMed Ryan M, Scott D, Reeves C, Bate A, van Teijlingen E, Russell E, et al. Eliciting public preferences for healthcare: a systematic review of techniques. Health Technol Assess. 2001;5(5):1–186.PubMed
14.
go back to reference Watts S, Stenner P, Doing Q. Methodological research: theory, method and interpretation. London: Sage; 2012. Watts S, Stenner P, Doing Q. Methodological research: theory, method and interpretation. London: Sage; 2012.
15.
go back to reference Cross RM. Exploring attitudes: the case for Q methodology. Health Educ Res. 2005;20(2):206–13.PubMed Cross RM. Exploring attitudes: the case for Q methodology. Health Educ Res. 2005;20(2):206–13.PubMed
16.
go back to reference Exel JV, Graaf GD, Brouwer W. Care for a break? An investigation of informal caregivers’ attitudes toward respite care using Q-methodology. Health Policy. 2007;83(2–3):332–42.PubMed Exel JV, Graaf GD, Brouwer W. Care for a break? An investigation of informal caregivers’ attitudes toward respite care using Q-methodology. Health Policy. 2007;83(2–3):332–42.PubMed
18.
go back to reference Zabala A. Qmethod: a package to explore human perspectives using Q methodology. R J. 2014;6(2):163–73. Zabala A. Qmethod: a package to explore human perspectives using Q methodology. R J. 2014;6(2):163–73.
19.
go back to reference R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2017. R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2017.
21.
go back to reference Saaty T. Fundamentals of decision making and priority theory with the analytic hierarchy process. Pittsburgh: Rws Publications; 2000. Saaty T. Fundamentals of decision making and priority theory with the analytic hierarchy process. Pittsburgh: Rws Publications; 2000.
22.
go back to reference Hummel MJ, Bridges JF, Ijzerman MJ. Group decision making with the analytic hierarchy process in benefit-risk assessment: a tutorial; 2014. Hummel MJ, Bridges JF, Ijzerman MJ. Group decision making with the analytic hierarchy process in benefit-risk assessment: a tutorial; 2014.
23.
go back to reference Vaidya OS, Kumar S. Analytic hierarchy process: an overview of applications. Eur J Oper Res. 2006;169(1):1–29. Vaidya OS, Kumar S. Analytic hierarchy process: an overview of applications. Eur J Oper Res. 2006;169(1):1–29.
24.
go back to reference Anquinet L, Raus K, Sterckx S, et al. Comparing continuous sedation until death and euthanasia: professional caregivers’ attitudes and experiences. A focus group study in flanders, Belgium. Palliat Med. 2013;27(6):553–61.PubMed Anquinet L, Raus K, Sterckx S, et al. Comparing continuous sedation until death and euthanasia: professional caregivers’ attitudes and experiences. A focus group study in flanders, Belgium. Palliat Med. 2013;27(6):553–61.PubMed
25.
go back to reference Gallagher M, Spencer HTJ, Bradshaw C, Webb I. The nominal group technique: a research tool for general practice? Fam Pract. 1993;10(1):76.PubMed Gallagher M, Spencer HTJ, Bradshaw C, Webb I. The nominal group technique: a research tool for general practice? Fam Pract. 1993;10(1):76.PubMed
26.
go back to reference Morgan DL, Ataie J, Carder P, Hoffman K. Introducing dyadic interviews as a method for collecting qualitative data. Qual Health Res. 2013;23(9):1276–84.PubMed Morgan DL, Ataie J, Carder P, Hoffman K. Introducing dyadic interviews as a method for collecting qualitative data. Qual Health Res. 2013;23(9):1276–84.PubMed
28.
go back to reference McComas KA. Theory and practice of public meetings. Commun Theory. 2006;11(1):36–55. McComas KA. Theory and practice of public meetings. Commun Theory. 2006;11(1):36–55.
29.
go back to reference Whiting L. Semi-structured interviews: guidance for novice researchers. Nurs Stand. 2008;22(23):35–40.PubMed Whiting L. Semi-structured interviews: guidance for novice researchers. Nurs Stand. 2008;22(23):35–40.PubMed
30.
go back to reference Trochim W, Kane M. Concept mapping: an introduction to structured conceptualization in health care. Int J Qual Health Care. 2005;17(3):187–91.PubMed Trochim W, Kane M. Concept mapping: an introduction to structured conceptualization in health care. Int J Qual Health Care. 2005;17(3):187–91.PubMed
31.
go back to reference Fraenkel L, Bodardus S, Wittink DR. Understanding patient preferences for the treatment of lupus nephritis with adaptive conjoint analysis. Med Care. 2001;39(11):1203.PubMed Fraenkel L, Bodardus S, Wittink DR. Understanding patient preferences for the treatment of lupus nephritis with adaptive conjoint analysis. Med Care. 2001;39(11):1203.PubMed
32.
go back to reference Soekhai V, de Bekker-Grob E, Ellis A, Vass C. Discrete choice experiments in health economics: past, present and future. PharmacoEconomics. 2018;37(2):201.PubMedCentral Soekhai V, de Bekker-Grob E, Ellis A, Vass C. Discrete choice experiments in health economics: past, present and future. PharmacoEconomics. 2018;37(2):201.PubMedCentral
33.
go back to reference Green PE, Krieger A, Agarwal M. Adaptive conjoint analysis: some cautions. J Mark Res. 1991;28:215–22. Green PE, Krieger A, Agarwal M. Adaptive conjoint analysis: some cautions. J Mark Res. 1991;28:215–22.
34.
go back to reference Cunningham CE, Deal K, Chen Y. Adaptive choice-based conjoint analysis: a new patient-centered approach to the assessment of health service preferences. Patient. 2010;3(4):257–73.PubMedPubMedCentral Cunningham CE, Deal K, Chen Y. Adaptive choice-based conjoint analysis: a new patient-centered approach to the assessment of health service preferences. Patient. 2010;3(4):257–73.PubMedPubMedCentral
35.
go back to reference Kopec JA, Richardson CG, Llewellyn-Thomas H, Klinkhoff A, Carswell A, Chalmers A. Probabilistic threshold technique showed that patients’ preferences for specific trade-offs between pain relief and each side effect of treatment in osteoarthritis varied. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60(9):929–38.PubMed Kopec JA, Richardson CG, Llewellyn-Thomas H, Klinkhoff A, Carswell A, Chalmers A. Probabilistic threshold technique showed that patients’ preferences for specific trade-offs between pain relief and each side effect of treatment in osteoarthritis varied. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60(9):929–38.PubMed
36.
go back to reference Morimoto T, Fukui T. Utilities measured by rating scale, time trade-off, and standard gamble: review and reference for health care professionals. J Epidemiol. 2002;12(2):160–78.PubMed Morimoto T, Fukui T. Utilities measured by rating scale, time trade-off, and standard gamble: review and reference for health care professionals. J Epidemiol. 2002;12(2):160–78.PubMed
37.
go back to reference Holdgate A, Asha S, Craig J, Thompson J. Comparison of a verbal numeric rating scale with the visual analogue scale for the measurement of acute pain. Emerg Med (Fremantle). 2003;15(5–6):441–6. Holdgate A, Asha S, Craig J, Thompson J. Comparison of a verbal numeric rating scale with the visual analogue scale for the measurement of acute pain. Emerg Med (Fremantle). 2003;15(5–6):441–6.
38.
go back to reference Liberatore MJ, Nydick RL. The analytic hierarchy process in medical and health care decision-making: a literature review. Eur J Oper Res. 2006;189(1):194–207. Liberatore MJ, Nydick RL. The analytic hierarchy process in medical and health care decision-making: a literature review. Eur J Oper Res. 2006;189(1):194–207.
39.
go back to reference Flynn TN, Louviere JJ, Peters TJ, Coast J. Best–worst scaling: what it can do for health care research and how to do it. J Health Econ. 2007;26(1):171–89.PubMed Flynn TN, Louviere JJ, Peters TJ, Coast J. Best–worst scaling: what it can do for health care research and how to do it. J Health Econ. 2007;26(1):171–89.PubMed
40.
go back to reference van Exel J. Care for a break? An investigation of informal caregivers’ attitudes toward respite care using Q-methodology. Health Policy. 2007;83(2–3):332–42.PubMed van Exel J. Care for a break? An investigation of informal caregivers’ attitudes toward respite care using Q-methodology. Health Policy. 2007;83(2–3):332–42.PubMed
42.
go back to reference Mu E, Pereyra-Rojas M. Practical decision making: an introduction to the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) using super decisions V2. Cham: Springer; 2017. Mu E, Pereyra-Rojas M. Practical decision making: an introduction to the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) using super decisions V2. Cham: Springer; 2017.
43.
go back to reference Saaty T. Decision making with dependence and feedback: the analytic network process. PA: RWA Publications; 1996. Saaty T. Decision making with dependence and feedback: the analytic network process. PA: RWA Publications; 1996.
Metadata
Title
Appraising patient preference methods for decision-making in the medical product lifecycle: an empirical comparison
Authors
Chiara Whichello
Bennett Levitan
Juhaeri Juhaeri
Vaishali Patadia
Rachael DiSantostefano
Cathy Anne Pinto
Esther W. de Bekker-Grob
Publication date
01-12-2020
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making / Issue 1/2020
Electronic ISSN: 1472-6947
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12911-020-01142-w

Other articles of this Issue 1/2020

BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making 1/2020 Go to the issue