IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/patien/v14y2021i5d10.1007_s40271-020-00482-z.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Patient Preferences in Rare Diseases: A Qualitative Study in Neuromuscular Disorders to Inform a Quantitative Preference Study

Author

Listed:
  • A. Cecilia Jimenez-Moreno

    (Newcastle University
    Evidera)

  • Eline Overbeeke

    (University of Leuven)

  • Cathy Anne Pinto

    (Merck & Co, Inc.)

  • Ian Smith

    (Utrecht University)

  • Jenny Sharpe

    (Muscular Dystrophy UK)

  • James Ormrod

    (University of Brighton)

  • Chiara Whichello

    (Erasmus University)

  • Esther W. Bekker-Grob

    (Erasmus University)

  • Kristin Bullok

    (Eli Lilly & Co.)

  • Bennett Levitan

    (Janssen Research and Development)

  • Isabelle Huys

    (University of Leuven)

  • G. Ardine Wit

    (Utrecht University)

  • Grainne Gorman

    (Newcastle University)

Abstract

Introduction It has become increasingly important to include patient preference information in decision-making processes for drug development. As neuromuscular disorders represent multisystem, debilitating, and progressive rare diseases with few treatment options, this study aimed to explore unmet health care needs and patient treatment preferences for two neuromuscular disorders, myotonic dystrophy type 1 (DM1) and mitochondrial myopathies (MM) to inform early stages of drug development. Methods Fifteen semi-structured interviews and five focus group discussions (FGDs) were held with DM1 and MM adult patients and caregivers. Topics discussed included (1) reasons for study participation; (2) disease signs/symptoms and their impact on daily lives; (3) top desired benefits; and (4) acceptability of risks and tolerance levels for a hypothetical new treatment. Data were analyzed following a thematic ‘code’ approach. Results A total of 52 participants representing a wide range of disease severities participated. ‘Muscle strength’ and ‘energy and endurance’ were the disease-related unmet needs most often mentioned. Additionally, improved ‘balance’, ‘cognition’ and ‘gut function’ were the top desired treatment benefits, while ‘damage to the liver, kidneys or eyes’ was the most concerning risk. Factors influencing their tolerance to risks related to previously having experienced the risk and differentiation between permanent and temporary risks. A few differences were elicited between patients and caregivers. Conclusions This qualitative study provided an open forum to elicit treatment-desired benefits and acceptable risks to be established by patients themselves. These findings can inform decisions for developing new treatments and the design of clinical trials for DM1 and MM.

Suggested Citation

  • A. Cecilia Jimenez-Moreno & Eline Overbeeke & Cathy Anne Pinto & Ian Smith & Jenny Sharpe & James Ormrod & Chiara Whichello & Esther W. Bekker-Grob & Kristin Bullok & Bennett Levitan & Isabelle Huys &, 2021. "Patient Preferences in Rare Diseases: A Qualitative Study in Neuromuscular Disorders to Inform a Quantitative Preference Study," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 14(5), pages 601-612, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:patien:v:14:y:2021:i:5:d:10.1007_s40271-020-00482-z
    DOI: 10.1007/s40271-020-00482-z
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40271-020-00482-z
    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/s40271-020-00482-z?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. Meredith Y. Smith & Isma Benattia, 2016. "The Patient’s Voice in Pharmacovigilance: Pragmatic Approaches to Building a Patient-Centric Drug Safety Organization," Drug Safety, Springer, vol. 39(9), pages 779-785, September.
    2. Ilene L. Hollin & Benjamin M. Craig & Joanna Coast & Kathleen Beusterien & Caroline Vass & Rachael DiSantostefano & Holly Peay, 2020. "Reporting Formative Qualitative Research to Support the Development of Quantitative Preference Study Protocols and Corresponding Survey Instruments: Guidelines for Authors and Reviewers," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 13(1), pages 121-136, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Magda Aguiar & Mark Harrison & Sarah Munro & Tiasha Burch & K. Julia Kaal & Marie Hudson & Nick Bansback & Tracey-Lea Laba, 2021. "Designing Discrete Choice Experiments Using a Patient-Oriented Approach," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 14(4), pages 389-397, July.
    2. David J. Mott & Laura Ternent & Luke Vale, 2023. "Do preferences differ based on respondent experience of a health issue and its treatment? A case study using a public health intervention," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 24(3), pages 413-423, April.
    3. Xiaoling Ge & Huanhuan Tong & Yongxia Song & Hongye He & Shuwen Li & Jingfang Hong & Wenru Wang, 2020. "The caring experience and supportive care needs of male partners for women with gynaecologic cancer: A qualitative literature review," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(23-24), pages 4469-4481, December.
    4. Merle Gijsbers & Iris Elise Keizer & Stephanie Else Schouten & Janneke Louise Trompert & Catharina G. M. Groothuis-Oudshoorn & Janine Astrid Til, 2021. "Public Preferences in Priority Setting when Admitting Patients to the ICU During the COVID-19 Crisis: A Pilot Study," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 14(3), pages 331-338, May.
    5. Wiebke Mohr & Anika Rädke & Adel Afi & Franka Mühlichen & Moritz Platen & Annelie Scharf & Bernhard Michalowsky & Wolfgang Hoffmann, 2022. "Development of a Quantitative Preference Instrument for Person-Centered Dementia Care—Stage 2: Insights from a Formative Qualitative Study to Design and Pretest a Dementia-Friendly Analytic Hierarchy ," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(14), pages 1-21, July.
    6. Cristiano Matos & Gerda Weits & Florence Hunsel, 2019. "The Role of European Patient Organizations in Pharmacovigilance," Drug Safety, Springer, vol. 42(4), pages 547-557, April.
    7. Jackson, Louise & Al-Janabi, Hareth & Roberts, Tracy & Ross, Jonthan, 2021. "Exploring young people's preferences for STI screening in the UK: A qualitative study and discrete choice experiment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 279(C).
    8. Cedric Bousquet & Bissan Audeh & Florelle Bellet & Agnès Lillo-Le Louët, 2018. "Comment on “Assessment of the Utility of Social Media for Broad-Ranging Statistical Signal Detection in Pharmacovigilance: Results from the WEB-RADR Project”," Drug Safety, Springer, vol. 41(12), pages 1371-1373, December.
    9. 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).
    10. Stacy M. Carter & Patti Shih & Jane Williams & Chris Degeling & Julie Mooney-Somers, 2021. "Conducting Qualitative Research Online: Challenges and Solutions," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 14(6), pages 711-718, November.
    11. Hareth Al-Janabi & Jenny Coles & John Copping & Nishit Dhanji & Carol McLoughlin & Jacky Murphy & Jean Nicholls, 2021. "Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) in Health Economics Methodology Research: Reflections and Recommendations," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 14(4), pages 421-427, July.
    12. Katherine Chinchilla & Cristiano Matos & Victoria Hall & Florence Hunsel, 2021. "Patient Organizations’ Barriers in Pharmacovigilance and Strategies to Stimulate Their Participation," Drug Safety, Springer, vol. 44(2), pages 181-191, February.
    13. Semra Ozdemir & Jia Jia Lee & Isha Chaudhry & Remee Rose Quintana Ocampo, 2022. "A Systematic Review of Discrete Choice Experiments and Conjoint Analysis on Genetic Testing," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 15(1), pages 39-54, January.
    14. Wiebke Mohr & Anika Rädke & Adel Afi & Franka Mühlichen & Moritz Platen & Bernhard Michalowsky & Wolfgang Hoffmann, 2022. "Development of a Quantitative Instrument to Elicit Patient Preferences for Person-Centered Dementia Care Stage 1: A Formative Qualitative Study to Identify Patient Relevant Criteria for Experimental D," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(13), pages 1-27, June.

    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:5:d:10.1007_s40271-020-00482-z. 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 .

    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.