Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
The European Journal of Health Economics
Published in: The European Journal of Health Economics 6/2015

01-07-2015 | Original Paper

Chronic pain patients’ treatment preferences: a discrete-choice experiment

Authors: Axel C. Mühlbacher, Uwe Junker, Christin Juhnke, Edgar Stemmler, Thomas Kohlmann, Friedhelm Leverkus, Matthias Nübling

Published in: The European Journal of Health Economics | Issue 6/2015

Login to get access

Abstract

Objective

The objective of this study was to identify, document, and weight attributes of a pain medication that are relevant from the perspective of patients with chronic pain. Within the sub-population of patients suffering from “chronic neuropathic pain”, three groups were analyzed in depth: patients with neuropathic back pain, patients with painful diabetic polyneuropathy, and patients suffering from pain due to post-herpetic neuralgia. The central question was: “On which features do patients base their assessment of pain medications and which features are most useful in the process of evaluating and selecting possible therapies?”

Methods

A detailed literature review, focus groups with patients, and face-to-face interviews with widely recognized experts for pain treatment were conducted to identify relevant treatment attributes of a pain medication. A pre-test was conducted to verify the structure of relevant and dominant attributes using factor analyses by evaluating the most frequently mentioned representatives of each factor. The Discrete-Choice Experiment (DCE) used a survey based on self-reported patient data including socio-demographics and specific parameters concerning pain treatment. Furthermore, the neuropathic pain component was determined in all patients based on their scoring in the painDETECT® questionnaire. For statistical data analysis of the DCE, a random effect logit model was used and coefficients were presented.

Results

A total of 1,324 German patients participated in the survey, of whom 44 % suffered from neuropathic back pain (including mixed pain syndrome), 10 % complained about diabetic polyneuropathy, and 4 % reported pain due to post-herpetic neuralgia. A total of 36 single quality aspects of pain treatment, detected in the qualitative survey, were grouped in 7 dimensions by factor analysis. These 7 dimensions were used as attributes for the DCE. The DCE model resulted in the following ranking of relevant attributes for treatment decision: “no character change”, “less nausea and vomiting”, “pain reduction” (coefficient: >0.9 for all attributes, “high impact”), “rapid effect”, “low risk of addiction” (coefficient ~0.5, “middle impact”), “applicability with comorbidity” (coefficient ~0.3), and “improvement of quality of sleep” (coefficient ~0.25). All attributes were highly significant (p < 0.001).

Conclusions

The results were intended to enable early selection of an individualized pain medication. The results of the study showed that DCE is an appropriate means for the identification of patient preferences when being treated with specific pain medications. Due to the fact that pain perception is subjective in nature, the identification of patients´ preferences will enable therapists to better develop and implement patient-oriented treatment of chronic pain. It is therefore essential to improve the therapists´ understanding of patient preferences in order to make decisions concerning pain treatment. DCE and direct assessment should become valid instruments to elicit treatment preferences in chronic pain.
Literature
1.
Alvaro, M., Kumar, D., Julka, I.S.: Transcutaneous electrostimulation: emerging treatment for diabetic neuropathic pain. Diabetes Technol. Ther. 1, 77–80 (1999)PubMedCrossRef
2.
Argoff, C.E.: The coexistence of neuropathic pain, sleep, and psychiatric disorders: a novel treatment approach. Clin. J. Pain 23, 15–22 (2007)PubMedCrossRef
3.
Baron, R.: Diagnostik und Therapie neuropathischer Schmerzen. Dtsch. Arztebl. 103, 2720–2730 (2006)
4.
Barrett, A.M., Lucero, M.A., Le, T., et al.: Epidemiology, public health burden, and treatment of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain: a review. Pain Med. 8, S50–S62 (2007)PubMedCrossRef
5.
Bas, H.: Pharmakotherapie bei neuropathischen Schmerzen durch Nichtspezialisten—Neue NICE-Leitlinien. ARS MEDICI 13, 540–542 (2010)
6.
Ben-Akiva, M., Lerman, S.R.: Discrete Choice Analysis: Theory and Application to Travel Demand. MIT Press, Cambridge (1985)
7.
Bennett, M.I., Attal, N., Backonja, M.M., et al.: Using screening tools to identify neuropathic pain. Pain 127, 199–203 (2007)PubMedCrossRef
8.
9.
Bradley, M.: User’s manual for the speed version 2.1 stated preference version 2.1 stated preference experiment editor and designer. Hague Consulting Group, The Hague (1991)
10.
Breivik, H., Collett, B., Ventafridda, V., et al.: Survey of chronic pain in Europe: prevalence, impact on daily life, and treatment. Eur. J. Pain 10, 287 (2006)PubMedCrossRef
11.
Bridges, J., Hauber, A., Marshall, D. et al.: Checklist for conjoint analysis applications in health: report of the ISPOR conjoint analysis good Research practices Taskforce, in press (2009)
12.
Bridges, J., Hauber, B., Marshall, D., et al.: Conjoint analysis use in health studies—a checklist: a report of the ISPOR conjoint analysis in health good research practices task force. In: ISPOR TF Report. Baltimore (2011)
13.
Bridges, J., Onukwugha, E., Johnson, F., et al.: Patient preference methods—a patient centered evaluation paradigm. ISPOR Connect. 13, 4–7 (2007)
14.
Bridges, J.F., Kinter, E.T., Kidane, L., et al.: Things are looking up since we started listening to patients: trends in the application of conjoint analysis in health 1982–2007. Patient 14, 273–282 (2008)CrossRef
15.
Bridges, J.F., Slawik, L., Schmeding, A., et al.: A test of concordance between patient and psychiatrist valuations of multiple treatment goals for schizophrenia. Health Expect. 16, 164–176 (2011)PubMedCrossRef
16.
Bryan, S., Gold, L., Sheldon, R., et al.: Preference measurement using conjoint methods: an empirical investigation of reliability. Health Econ. 9, 385–395 (2000)PubMedCrossRef
17.
Bryan, S., Parry, D.: Structural reliability of conjoint measurement in health care: an empirical investigation. Appl. Econ. 34, 561–568 (2002)CrossRef
18.
Burgess, L.: Discrete choice experiments (computer software). In: Department of Mathematical Sciences, University of Technology, Sydney (2007)
19.
Carroll, D., Moore, R., Mcquay, H., et al.: Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) for chronic pain. Cochrane Libr. (2002)
20.
Crooks, L.K.: Assessing pain and the Joint Commission pain standards. Adv. Emerg. Nurs. J. 24, 1–9 (2002)
21.
De Bekker-Grob, E.W., Ryan, M., Gerard, K.: Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature. Health Econ. 21, 145–172 (2012)PubMedCrossRef
22.
Diener, H.C., Putzki, N., Berlit, P.: Leitlinien für Diagnostik und Therapie in der Neurologie Thieme Stuttgart (2008)
23.
24.
Dworkin, R.H., Johnson, R.W., Breuer, J., et al.: Recommendations for the management of herpes zoster. Clin. Infect. Dis. 44, S1–S26 (2007)PubMedCrossRef
25.
Edwards, A., Elwyn, G.: Inside the black box of shared decision making: distinguishing between the process of involvement and who makes the decision. Health Expect. 9, 307–320 (2006)PubMedCrossRef
26.
Edwards, A., Elwyn, G., Wood, F., et al.: Shared decision making and risk communication in practice: a qualitative study of GPs’ experiences. Br. J. Gen. Pract. 55, 6 (2005)PubMedCentralPubMed
27.
28.
Flynn, T.N., Louviere, J.J., Peters, T.J., et al.: Best–worst scaling: what it can do for health care research and how to do it. J. Health Econ. 26, 171–189 (2007)PubMedCrossRef
29.
Flynn, T.N., Louviere, J.J., Peters, T.J., et al.: Estimating preferences for a dermatology consultation using Best-Worst Scaling: comparison of various methods of analysis. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 8, 76 (2008)PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
30.
Freynhagen, R., Baron, R., Gockel, U., et al.: Pain DETECT: a new screening questionnaire to identify neuropathic components in patients with back pain. Current Med. Res. Opin. 22, 1911–1920 (2006)CrossRef
31.
Freynhagen, R., Busche, P., Konrad, C., et al.: Wirksamkeit und Wirkungsbeginn von Pregabalin bei Patienten mit neuropathischen Schmerzen. Der Schmerz 20, 285–292 (2006)PubMedCrossRef
32.
Freynhagen, R., Tölle, T., Gockel, U., et al.: PainDETECT-ein Palmtop-basiertes Verfahren für Versorgungsforschung, Qualitätsmanagement und Screening bei chronischen Schmerzen. Aktuelle Neurologie 32, P641 (2005)CrossRef
33.
Fricker, J.: Pain in Europe. A report. The Pain Society, Cambridge (2003)
34.
Gore, M., Brandenburg, N.A., Hoffman, D.L., et al.: Burden of illness in painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy: the patients’ perspectives. J. Pain 7, 892 (2006)PubMedCrossRef
35.
Haanpää, M., Treede, F.: Diagnosis and classification of neuropathic pain. IASP Clin. Updates 18, 1–6 (2010)
36.
Hauber, A.B.: Healthy-years equivalent: wounded but not yet dead. Expert Rev. Pharmacoecon. Outcomes Res. 9, 265–270 (2009)PubMedCrossRef
37.
Hensher, D., Rose, J., Greene, W.: Applied choice Analysis: a Primer. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2005)CrossRef
38.
Huber, J., Zwerina, K.: The importance of utility balance in efficient choice designs. J. Mark. Res. 33, 307–317 (1996)CrossRef
39.
Icks, A., Rathmann, W., Rosenbauer, J., et al.: Gesundheitsberichterstattung des Bundes, Heft 24: Diabetes mellitus. Robert Koch-Institut (2007)
40.
Insinga, R.P., Itzler, R.F., Pellissier, J.M., et al.: The incidence of herpes zoster in a United States administrative database. J. Gen. Intern. Med. 20, 748–753 (2005)PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
41.
Iskedjian, M., Einarson, T., Walker, J. H., et al.: Anticonvulsants, serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, and tricyclic antidepressants in management of neuropathic pain: a meta-analysis and economic evaluation (Technology report). In: Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health, Ottawa (2009)
42.
Jensen, T.S., Backonja, M.-M., Jiménez, S.H., et al.: New perspectives on the management of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain. Diabetes Vas. Dis. Res. 3, 108–119 (2006)CrossRef
43.
Johnson, F.R., Banzhaf, M.R., Desvousges, W.H.: Willingness to pay for improved respiratory and cardiovascular health: a multiple-format, stated-preference approach. Health Econ. 9, 295–317 (2000)PubMedCrossRef
44.
Johnson, F.R., Hauber, A.B., Özdemir, S.: Using conjoint analysis to estimate healthy-year equivalents for acute conditions: an application to Vasomotor symptoms. Value Health 12, 146–152 (2009)PubMedCrossRef
45.
Johnson, F.R., Ozdemir, S., Mansfield, C., et al.: Crohn’s disease patients’ risk-benefit preferences: serious adverse event risks versus treatment efficacy. Gastroenterology 133, 769–779 (2007)PubMedCrossRef
46.
Junker, U., Baron, R., Freynhagen, R.: Das “mixed pain concept“ als neue Rationale. Das Zusammenspiel von nozizeptiven und neuropathischen Schmerzen erfordert die neuen Wege der Analgesie. Dtsch Arztebl 101, A1393–A1394 (2004)
47.
Kleinman, L., Mcintosh, E., Ryan, M., et al.: Willingness to pay for complete symptom relief of gastroesophageal reflux disease. Arch. Intern. Med. 162, 1361–1366 (2002)PubMedCrossRef
48.
Lancaster, K.: Consumer Demand: A New Approach. Columbia University Press, New York (1971)
49.
Lancaster, K.J.: A New Approach to Consumer Theory. Bobbs-Merrill, Indianapolis (1966)
50.
Lancaster, K.J.: A new approach to consumer theory. J. Polit. Econ. 74, 132–157 (1966)CrossRef
51.
Lancsar, E., Louviere, J.: Conducting discrete choice experiments to inform healthcare decision making: a user’s guide. PharmacoEconomics 26, 661–678 (2008)PubMedCrossRef
52.
Lancsar, E., Louviere, J., Flynn, T.: Several methods to investigate relative attribute impact in stated preference experiments. Soc. Sci. Med. 64, 1738–1753 (2007)PubMedCrossRef
53.
Langley, P.C.: The societal burden of pain in Germany: health-related quality-of-life, health status and direct medical costs. J. Med. Econ. 15, 1201–1215 (2012)PubMedCrossRef
54.
Loh, A., Simon, D., Bieber, C., et al.: Patient and citizen participation in German health care-current state and future perspectives. Zeitschrift für ärztliche Fortbildung und Qualität im Gesundheitswesen-German J. Qual. Health Care 101, 229–235 (2007)
55.
Louviere, J.J., Hensher, D.A., Swait, J.D.: Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Application. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2000)CrossRef
56.
Louviere, J.J., Hensher, D.A., Swait, J.D.: Stated choice methods: analysis and applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2000)CrossRef
57.
Louviere, J.J., Lancsar, E.: Choice experiments in health: the good, the bad, the ugly and toward a brighter future. Health Econ. Policy Law 4, 527–546 (2009)PubMedCrossRef
58.
Mcdermott, A.M., Toelle, T.R., Rowbotham, D.J., et al.: The burden of neuropathic pain: results from a cross-sectional survey. Eur. J. Pain 10, 127 (2006)PubMedCrossRef
59.
Mcfadden, D.: Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. in Frontiers of Econometrics, ed. by P. Zarembka, Academic Press, New York, pp. 105–142 (1973)
60.
Meyer-Rosberg, K., Burckhardt, C.S., Huizar, K., et al.: A comparison of the SF-36 and Nottingham Health Profile in patients with chronic neuropathic pain. Eur. J. Pain 5, 391–403 (2001)PubMedCrossRef
61.
Morgan, A., Shackley, P., Pickin, M., et al.: Quantifying patient preferences for out-of-hours primary care. J. Health Serv. Res. Policy 5, 214–218 (2000)PubMed
62.
Moulin, D., Clark, A., Gilron, I., et al.: Pharmacological management of chronic neuropathic pain—consensus statement and guidelines from the Canadian Pain Society. Pain Research & Management: The Journal of the Canadian Pain Society 12, 13 (2007)
63.
Mühlbacher, A., Juhnke, C.: Patients preferences versus physicians judgments: does it make a difference in health care decision-making? Appl. Health Econ. Health Policy 11, 163–180 (2013)PubMedCrossRef
64.
Mühlbacher, A., Juhnke, C., Bethge, S.: Experts’ judgment on patient-centered coordinated care. Value Health 13, A337 (2010)CrossRef
65.
Mühlbacher, A., Lincke, H., Nübling, M.: Evaluating patients’ preferences for multiple myeloma therapy, a discrete choice experiment. GMS Psycho-Social-Med. 5 (2008)
66.
Mühlbacher, A.C., Bethge, S., Tockhorn, A.: Präferenzmessung im Gesundheitswesen: grundlagen von Discrete-Choice-Experimenten. Gesundheitsökonomie Qualitätsmanagement 1, 17–44 (2013)
67.
Mühlbacher, A.C., Stoll, M., Mahlich, J., et al.: Patient preferences for HIV/AIDS therapy-a discrete choice experiment. Health Econ. Rev. 3, 1–8 (2013)CrossRef
68.
Neuhauser, H., Ellert, U., Ziese, T.: Chronische Rückenschmerzen in der Allgemeinbevölkerung in Deutschland 2002/2003: prävalenz und besonders betroffene Bevölkerungsgruppen. Das Gesundheitswesen 67, 685–693 (2005)PubMedCrossRef
69.
Nice Neuropathic pain: the pharmacological management of neuropathic pain in adults in non-specialist settings. Clinical guideline 96. In: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence London (2010)
70.
Ohayon, M.M., Stingl, J.C.: Prevalence and comorbidity of chronic pain in the German general population. J. Psychiatr. Res. 46, 444–450 (2012)PubMedCrossRef
71.
Orme, B. Sample size issues for conjoint analysis studies. Sawthooth Software Research paper Series. Squim, WA, USA: Sawthooth Software Inc (1998)
72.
Phillips, K.A., Johnson, F.R., Maddala, T.: Measuring what people value: a comparison of “attitude” and “preference” surveys. Health Serv. Res. 37, 1659–1679 (2002)PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
73.
Pittler, M.H., Ernst, E.: Complementary therapies for neuropathic and neuralgic pain: systematic review. Clin. J. Pain 24, 731–733 (2008)PubMedCrossRef
74.
Poliakov, I., Toth, C.: The impact of pain in patients with polyneuropathy. Eur. J. Pain 15, 1015–1022 (2011)PubMedCrossRef
75.
76.
77.
Ryan, M., Farrar, S.: Using conjoint analysis to elicit preferences for health care. BMJ (Clinical research ed) 320, 1530–1533 (2000)CrossRef
78.
Ryan, M., Gerard, K.: Using discrete choice experiments to value health care programmes: current practice and future research reflections. Appl. Health Econ. Health Policy 2, 55–64 (2003)PubMed
79.
Ryan, M., Gerard, K., Amaya-Amaya, M.: Using discrete choice experiments to value health and health care. Springer, Dordrecht (2008)CrossRef
80.
Ryan, M., Hughes, J.: Using conjoint analysis to assess women’s preferences for miscarriage management. Health Econ. 6, 261–273 (1997)PubMedCrossRef
81.
Sachverständigenrat Für Die Konzertierte Aktion Im Gesundheitswesen (Svr) Gutachten 2000/2001: Bedarfsgerechtigkeit und Wirtschaftlichkeit. Band III. Über-, Unter- und Fehlversorgung. In:BT-Drucksache 14/6871 vom 31. 08. 2001 (2001)
82.
Schmader, K., Gnann, J.W., Watson, C.P.: The epidemiological, clinical, and pathological rationale for the herpes zoster vaccine. J. Infect. Dis. 197, S207–S215 (2008)PubMedCrossRef
83.
Schmader, K.E.: Epidemiology and impact on quality of life of postherpetic neuralgia and painful diabetic neuropathy. Clin. J. Pain 18, 350–354 (2002)PubMedCrossRef
84.
Scott, A., Vick, S.: Patients, doctors and contracts: an application of principal-agent theory to the doctor-patient relationship. Scottish J. Polit. Econ. 46, 111–134 (1999)CrossRef
85.
Siegel, E.: Versorgungsstrukturen, Berufsbilder und professionelle Diabetesorganisationen in Deutschland. Deutscher Gesundheitsbericht Diabetes 2011, 23–33 (2010)
86.
Street, D.J., Burgess, L.: The construction of optimal stated choice experiments: theory and methods. Wiley, London (2007)CrossRef
87.
Tan, T., Barry, P., Reken, S., et al.: Pharmacological management of neuropathic pain in non-specialist settings: summary of NICE guidance. BMJ 340, c1079 (2010)PubMedCrossRef
88.
Telser, H.: Nutzenmessung im Gesundheitswesen: die Methode der Discrete-Choice-Experimente. Dr. Kovač, Hamburg (2002)
89.
Telser, H.B.K., Zweifel, P.: Validity and reliability of willingness-to-pay estimates: evidence from two overlapping discrete-choice-experiments. Patient, Patient-Cent. Outcome Res. 1, 283–293 (2008)CrossRef
90.
Telser, H., Zweifel, P.: Measuring willingness-to-pay for risk reduction: an application of conjoint analysis. Health Econ. 11, 129–139 (2002)PubMedCrossRef
91.
Thurstone LL: A law of comparative judgment. In Maranell GM (ed): Scaling: A Sourcebook for Behavioral Scientists. Chicago, IL, Aldine, pp 81–92 (1974)
92.
Torrance, N., Smith, B.H., Bennett, M.I., et al.: The epidemiology of chronic pain of predominantly neuropathic origin. Results from a general population survey. J. Pain 7, 281–289 (2006)PubMedCrossRef
93.
Train, K.: Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2009)CrossRef
94.
95.
Trope, Y., Liberman, N., Wakslak, C.: Construal levels and psychological distance: effects on representation, prediction, evaluation, and behavior. J. Consum. Psychol 17, 83 (2007)PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
96.
97.
Vázquez, M., Shapiro, E.D.: Varicella vaccine and infection with varicella–zoster virus. N. Engl. J. Med. 352, 439–440 (2005)PubMedCrossRef
98.
Veves, A., Backonja, M., Malik, R.A.: Painful diabetic neuropathy: epidemiology, natural history, early diagnosis, and treatment options. Pain Med. 9, 660–674 (2008)PubMedCrossRef
99.
Vick, S., Scott, A.: Agency in health care. Examining patients’ preferences for attributes of the doctor-patient relationship. J. Health Econ. 17, 587–605 (1998)PubMedCrossRef
100.
101.
Ziegler, D.: Painful diabetic neuropathy: treatment and future aspects. Diabetes/metabolism Res. Rev 24, S52–S57 (2008)CrossRef
102.
Zussman, J., Young, L.: Zoster vaccine live for the prevention of shingles in the elderly patient. Clin. Interv. Aging 3, 241 (2008)PubMedCentralPubMed
Metadata
Title
Chronic pain patients’ treatment preferences: a discrete-choice experiment
Authors
Axel C. Mühlbacher
Uwe Junker
Christin Juhnke
Edgar Stemmler
Thomas Kohlmann
Friedhelm Leverkus
Matthias Nübling
Publication date
01-07-2015
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
The European Journal of Health Economics / Issue 6/2015
Print ISSN: 1618-7598
Electronic ISSN: 1618-7601
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-014-0614-4

Other articles of this Issue 6/2015

The European Journal of Health Economics 6/2015 Go to the issue

Original Paper

Cost-effectiveness of computed tomography coronary angiography versus conventional invasive coronary angiography

Original Paper

Long-term effects of oral clefts on health care utilization: a sibling comparison

Editorial

When do performance-based risk-sharing arrangements make sense?

Original Paper

A model-based cost-effectiveness analysis of a grommets-led care pathway for children with cleft palate affected by otitis media with effusion

Original Paper

Productivity or discrimination? An economic analysis of excess-weight penalty in the Swedish labor market

Original Paper

Patients’ preferences: a discrete-choice experiment for treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer