IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/patien/v15y2022i6d10.1007_s40271-022-00586-8.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Patient Medication Preferences for Managing Dry Eye Disease: The Importance of Medication Side Effects

Author

Listed:
  • Semra Ozdemir

    (Duke-NUS Medical School
    National University of Singapore)

  • Sharon Wan Jie Yeo

    (Singapore Eye Research Institute)

  • Jia Jia Lee

    (Duke-NUS Medical School)

  • Adithya Bhaskar

    (Duke-NUS Medical School)

  • Eric Finkelstein

    (Duke-NUS Medical School
    National University of Singapore
    Duke University)

  • Louis Tong

    (Singapore Eye Research Institute
    Singapore National Eye Centre
    National University of Singapore)

Abstract

Objectives The side effects of dry eye medications can lead to medication non-adherence and, eventually, to poor outcomes. This study aimed to quantify to what extent the side effects of dry eye disease (DED) medications (burning/stinging sensation and blurring) are important to patients compared to medication benefits or costs. Methods Patients diagnosed with DED were recruited at a referral eye center in Singapore (n = 139). This study utilized a Discrete Choice Experiment where patients were presented with 10 choice tasks where they were asked to choose between their current medication (or no medication), and two hypothetical medications that varied based on five attributes: duration of burning/stinging, duration of blurring, time to medication effectiveness, medication frequency, and out-of-pocket cost. The main outcomes were relative attribute importance and predicted uptake. Results Latent class logistic regressions found two groups with distinct preferences. For both classes, duration of burning/stinging (Class 1 = 23%, Class 2 = 29%) and cost (Class 1 = 24%, Class 2 = 27%) were the most important attributes while duration of blurring (Class 1 = 15%, Class 2 = 9%) was the least important. The predicted uptake of a medication increased 18 percentage-points when burning/stinging duration decreased from 2 h to a few minutes. The predicted uptake for new medications was lowest for those on medication with well-controlled symptoms and highest for those who were not on medication and could not control their symptoms effectively. Conclusion This study showed that duration of burning/stinging was an important factor when choosing medications. Incorporating patient preferences in medication decisions can potentially improve patient acceptance of a treatment regimen.

Suggested Citation

  • Semra Ozdemir & Sharon Wan Jie Yeo & Jia Jia Lee & Adithya Bhaskar & Eric Finkelstein & Louis Tong, 2022. "Patient Medication Preferences for Managing Dry Eye Disease: The Importance of Medication Side Effects," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 15(6), pages 679-690, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:patien:v:15:y:2022:i:6:d:10.1007_s40271-022-00586-8
    DOI: 10.1007/s40271-022-00586-8
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40271-022-00586-8
    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/s40271-022-00586-8?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. Semra Özdemir & Ateesha F. Mohamed & F. Reed Johnson & A. Brett Hauber, 2010. "Who pays attention in stated‐choice surveys?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 19(1), pages 111-118, January.
    2. Emily Lancsar & Elizabeth Savage, 2004. "Deriving welfare measures from discrete choice experiments: inconsistency between current methods and random utility and welfare theory," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(9), pages 901-907, September.
    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. 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.
    2. Bart Neuts & Peter Nijkamp & Eveline Van Leeuwen, 2012. "Crowding Externalities from Tourist Use of Urban Space," Tourism Economics, , vol. 18(3), pages 649-670, June.
    3. Lancsar, Emily & Louviere, Jordan & Flynn, Terry, 2007. "Several methods to investigate relative attribute impact in stated preference experiments," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 64(8), pages 1738-1753, April.
    4. Richard Norman & Jane Hall & Deborah Street & Rosalie Viney, 2013. "Efficiency And Equity: A Stated Preference Approach," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(5), pages 568-581, May.
    5. Emma L Giles & Frauke Becker & Laura Ternent & Falko F Sniehotta & Elaine McColl & Jean Adams, 2016. "Acceptability of Financial Incentives for Health Behaviours: A Discrete Choice Experiment," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(6), pages 1-19, June.
    6. Emma McIntosh, 2006. "Using Discrete Choice Experiments within a Cost-Benefit Analysis Framework," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 24(9), pages 855-868, September.
    7. John Hutton, 2012. "‘Health Economics’ and the evolution of economic evaluation of health technologies," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(1), pages 13-18, January.
    8. Ozdemir, Semra & Gonzalez, Juan Marcos & Bansal, Prateek & Huynh, Vinh Anh & Sng, Ban Leong & Finkelstein, Eric, 2024. "Getting it right with discrete choice experiments: Are we hot or cold?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 348(C).
    9. Timothy R. Silberg & Robert B. Richardson & Maria Claudia Lopez, 2020. "Maize farmer preferences for intercropping systems to reduce Striga in Malawi," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 12(2), pages 269-283, April.
    10. Diego Ossa & Andrew Briggs & Emma McIntosh & Warren Cowell & Tim Littlewood & Mark Sculpher, 2007. "Recombinant Erythropoietin for Chemotherapy-Related Anaemia," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 25(3), pages 223-237, March.
    11. Denise Bijlenga & Gouke J. Bonsel & Erwin Birnie, 2011. "Eliciting willingness to pay in obstetrics: comparing a direct and an indirect valuation method for complex health outcomes," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(11), pages 1392-1406, November.
    12. Chandoevwit, Worawan & Wasi, Nada, 2020. "Incorporating discrete choice experiments into policy decisions: Case of designing public long-term care insurance," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 258(C).
    13. Carol Mansfield & Daniel J. Phaneuf & F. Reed Johnson & Jui-Chen Yang & Robert Beach, 2008. "Preferences for Public Lands Management under Competing Uses: The Case of Yellowstone National Park," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 84(2), pages 282-305.
    14. F. Reed Johnson & Ateesha F. Mohamed & Semra Özdemir & Deborah A. Marshall & Kathryn A. Phillips, 2011. "How does cost matter in health‐care discrete‐choice experiments?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(3), pages 323-330, March.
    15. Nieboer, Anna P. & Koolman, Xander & Stolk, Elly A., 2010. "Preferences for long-term care services: Willingness to pay estimates derived from a discrete choice experiment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 70(9), pages 1317-1325, May.
    16. Ozdemir, Semra & Johnson, F. Reed & Whittington, Dale, 2016. "Ideology, public goods and welfare valuation: An experiment on allocating government budgets," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 20(C), pages 61-72.
    17. Hackbarth, André & Madlener, Reinhard, 2016. "Willingness-to-pay for alternative fuel vehicle characteristics: A stated choice study for Germany," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 89-111.
    18. Ivan Sever & Miroslav Verbič & Eva Klaric Sever, 2020. "Estimating Attribute-Specific Willingness-to-Pay Values from a Health Care Contingent Valuation Study: A Best–Worst Choice Approach," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 18(1), pages 97-107, February.
    19. Md Z Sadique & Nancy Devlin & William J Edmunds & David Parkin, 2013. "The Effect of Perceived Risks on the Demand for Vaccination: Results from a Discrete Choice Experiment," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(2), pages 1-9, February.
    20. Niklas M. Witzig, 2024. "Cognitive Noise and Altruistic Preferences," Papers 2410.07647, arXiv.org, revised Jan 2025.

    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:15:y:2022:i:6:d:10.1007_s40271-022-00586-8. 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.