IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/patien/v14y2021i6d10.1007_s40271-021-00521-3.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessing Patient Preferences in Rare Diseases: Direct Preference Elicitation in the Rare Chronic Kidney Disease, Immunoglobulin A Nephropathy

Author

Listed:
  • Kevin Marsh

    (Evidera)

  • Kerrie-Anne Ho

    (UCB Pharma)

  • Rachel Lo

    (Evidera)

  • Nancy Zaour

    (Novartis Pharma AG)

  • Aneesh Thomas George

    (Novartis Healthcare Pvt. Ltd)

  • Nigel S. Cook

    (Novartis Pharma AG)

Abstract

Background Patient preference information is increasingly being used to inform decision making; however, further work is required to support the collection of preference information in rare diseases. This study illustrates the use of direct preference elicitation methods to collect preference data from small samples in the context of early decision making to inform the development of a product for the treatment of immunoglobulin A nephropathy. Method An interview-based swing weighting approach was used to elicit preferences from 40 patients in the US and China. Attributes were identified through a background review, expert engagement and patient focus groups. Participants completed a series of tasks that involved ranking, rating and scoring improvements in the attributes to obtain attribute swing weights and partial value functions. The preference results were then incorporated into a benefit-risk assessment simulation tool. Results Participants placed the greatest value on avoiding end-stage renal/kidney disease. Similar weight was given to short-term quality-of-life improvements and avoiding infections. Treatment burden (number of vaccinations) received the least weight. Heterogeneity in preferences was also observed. Consistency tests did not identify statistically significant variation in preferences, and qualitative data suggested that the elicitation exercise was sensitive to participants’ interpretation of attributes and that participants were able to express their preferences. Conclusion Direct preference elicitation methods can be used to collect preference data from small samples. Further work should continue to test the validity of the estimate generated by such methods.

Suggested Citation

  • Kevin Marsh & Kerrie-Anne Ho & Rachel Lo & Nancy Zaour & Aneesh Thomas George & Nigel S. Cook, 2021. "Assessing Patient Preferences in Rare Diseases: Direct Preference Elicitation in the Rare Chronic Kidney Disease, Immunoglobulin A Nephropathy," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 14(6), pages 837-847, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:patien:v:14:y:2021:i:6:d:10.1007_s40271-021-00521-3
    DOI: 10.1007/s40271-021-00521-3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40271-021-00521-3
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40271-021-00521-3?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.

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Kenar D. Jhaveri & Mark E. Bensink & Martin Bunke & Jonathon A. Briggs & David M. W. Cork & Anushya Jeyabalan, 2023. "Humanistic and Economic Burden of IgA Nephropathy: Systematic Literature Reviews and Narrative Synthesis," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 7(5), pages 709-722, 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:14:y:2021:i:6:d:10.1007_s40271-021-00521-3. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.