IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/drugsa/v41y2018i2d10.1007_s40264-017-0601-7.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Preferences of Patients and Pharmacists with Regard to the Management of Drug–Drug Interactions: A Choice-Based Conjoint Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Mette Heringa

    (SIR Institute for Pharmacy Practice and Policy
    Utrecht University
    Health Base Foundation)

  • Annemieke Floor-Schreudering

    (SIR Institute for Pharmacy Practice and Policy
    Utrecht University)

  • Hans Wouters

    (Groningen University)

  • Peter A. G. M. De Smet

    (University Medical Centre St Radboud)

  • Marcel L. Bouvy

    (SIR Institute for Pharmacy Practice and Policy
    Utrecht University)

Abstract

Introduction The management of drug–drug interactions (DDIs) is a complex process in which risk–benefit assessments should be combined with the patient’s perspective. Objective The aim of this study was to determine patients’ and pharmacists’ preferences regarding DDI management. Methods We conducted a choice-based conjoint survey about a fictitious DDI concerning the combination of a cardiovascular drug and an antibiotic for pneumonia. Patients and pharmacists had to choose 12 times between two management options. The options were described by five attributes, including risk, benefit and practical consequences. Each attribute could have two different levels, which were varied over the choice tasks. Latent class analysis was used to identify potential classes of respondents with distinct patterns of similar preferences. Results In total, 298 patients and 178 pharmacists completed the questionnaire. The latent class model for both patients and pharmacists resulted in three classes. For patients, in one class the most importance was attached to avoiding switch of medication (class probability 20%), in a second class to fewer adverse events (41%), and in a third class to blood sampling (39%). For pharmacists, again one class attached the highest importance to avoiding switch of medication (31%). The other classes gave priority to curing pneumonia (31%) and avoiding blood sampling (38%). Conclusion The results showed diverging preferences regarding DDI management among both patients and pharmacists. Different groups attached different value to risk and benefit versus practical considerations. Awareness of existing variability in preferences among and between pharmacists and patients is a step towards shared decision making in DDI management.

Suggested Citation

  • Mette Heringa & Annemieke Floor-Schreudering & Hans Wouters & Peter A. G. M. De Smet & Marcel L. Bouvy, 2018. "Preferences of Patients and Pharmacists with Regard to the Management of Drug–Drug Interactions: A Choice-Based Conjoint Analysis," Drug Safety, Springer, vol. 41(2), pages 179-189, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:drugsa:v:41:y:2018:i:2:d:10.1007_s40264-017-0601-7
    DOI: 10.1007/s40264-017-0601-7
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40264-017-0601-7
    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/s40264-017-0601-7?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.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mandy Ryan & Verity Watson & Vikki Entwistle, 2009. "Rationalising the ‘irrational’: a think aloud study of discrete choice experiment responses," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(3), pages 321-336, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. van de Pol, Jeroen M. & Heringa, Mette & Koster, Ellen S. & Bouvy, Marcel L., 2021. "Preferences of patients regarding community pharmacy services: A discrete choice experiment," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 125(11), pages 1415-1420.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Alene Sze Jing Yong & Yi Heng Lim & Mark Wing Loong Cheong & Ednin Hamzah & Siew Li Teoh, 2022. "Willingness-to-pay for cancer treatment and outcome: a systematic review," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 23(6), pages 1037-1057, August.
    2. Marta Trapero-Bertran & Beatriz Rodríguez-Martín & Julio López-Bastida, 2019. "What attributes should be included in a discrete choice experiment related to health technologies? A systematic literature review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(7), pages 1-15, July.
    3. C. Mónica Capra, 2019. "Understanding decision processes in guessing games: a protocol analysis approach," Journal of the Economic Science Association, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 5(1), pages 123-135, August.
    4. Alessandro Mengoni & Chiara Seghieri & Sabina Nuti, 2013. "The application of discrete choice experiments in health economics: a systematic review of the literature," Working Papers 201301, Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna of Pisa, Istituto di Management.
    5. Viberg Johansson, Jennifer & Shah, Nisha & Haraldsdóttir, Eik & Bentzen, Heidi Beate & Coy, Sarah & Kaye, Jane & Mascalzoni, Deborah & Veldwijk, Jorien, 2021. "Governance mechanisms for sharing of health data: An approach towards selecting attributes for complex discrete choice experiment studies," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 66(C).
    6. Börjesson, Maria & Fosgerau, Mogens & Algers, Staffan, 2012. "Catching the tail: Empirical identification of the distribution of the value of travel time," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 46(2), pages 378-391.
    7. Caroline Vass & Dan Rigby & Katherine Payne, 2019. "“I Was Trying to Do the Maths”: Exploring the Impact of Risk Communication in Discrete Choice Experiments," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 12(1), pages 113-123, February.
    8. Börger, Tobias & Hattam, Caroline & Burdon, Daryl & Atkins, Jonathan P. & Austen, Melanie C., 2014. "Valuing conservation benefits of an offshore marine protected area," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 229-241.
    9. Mandy Ryan & Nicolas Krucien & Frouke Hermens, 2018. "The eyes have it: Using eye tracking to inform information processing strategies in multi‐attributes choices," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(4), pages 709-721, April.
    10. Jia Wang & Jiaoju Ge & Zhifeng Gao, 2018. "Consumers’ Preferences and Derived Willingness-to-Pay for Water Supply Safety Improvement: The Analysis of Pricing and Incentive Strategies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-16, May.
    11. Mehdi Ammi & Christine Peyron, 2016. "Heterogeneity in general practitioners’ preferences for quality improvement programs: a choice experiment and policy simulation in France," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 6(1), pages 1-11, December.
    12. Erdem, Seda & Campbell, Danny & Thompson, Carl, 2014. "Elimination and selection by aspects in health choice experiments: Prioritising health service innovations," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 10-22.
    13. Joachim Marti & John Buckell & Johanna Catherine Maclean & Jody Sindelar, 2019. "To “Vape” Or Smoke? Experimental Evidence On Adult Smokers," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 57(1), pages 705-725, January.
    14. Milad Haghani & Michiel C. J. Bliemer & John M. Rose & Harmen Oppewal & Emily Lancsar, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part I. Integrative synthesis of empirical evidence and conceptualisation of external validity," Papers 2102.02940, arXiv.org.
    15. Jonathan Sicsic & Serge Blondel & Sandra Chyderiotis & François Langot & Judith E. Mueller, 2023. "Preferences for COVID-19 epidemic control measures among French adults: a discrete choice experiment," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 24(1), pages 81-98, February.
    16. Galárraga, Omar & Kuo, Caroline & Mtukushe, Bulelwa & Maughan-Brown, Brendan & Harrison, Abigail & Hoare, Jackie, 2020. "iSAY (incentives for South African youth): Stated preferences of young people living with HIV," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 265(C).
    17. Jennifer A Whitty & Ruth Walker & Xanthe Golenko & Julie Ratcliffe, 2014. "A Think Aloud Study Comparing the Validity and Acceptability of Discrete Choice and Best Worst Scaling Methods," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(4), pages 1-9, April.
    18. LUYTEN, Jeroen & KESSELS, Roselinde & GOOS, Peter & BEUTELS, Philippe, 2013. "Public preferences for prioritizing preventive and curative health care interventions: A discrete choice experiment," Working Papers 2013032, University of Antwerp, Faculty of Business and Economics.
    19. Nicolas Krucien & Verity Watson & Mandy Ryan, 2017. "Is Best–Worst Scaling Suitable for Health State Valuation? A Comparison with Discrete Choice Experiments," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(12), pages 1-16, December.
    20. Emily Lancsar & Joffre Swait, 2014. "Reconceptualising the External Validity of Discrete Choice Experiments," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 32(10), pages 951-965, October.

    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:drugsa:v:41:y:2018:i:2:d:10.1007_s40264-017-0601-7. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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/economics/journal/40264 .

    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.