IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/patien/v16y2023i2d10.1007_s40271-022-00614-7.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Patient Preferences in the Management of Hidradenitis Suppurativa: Results of a Multinational Discrete Choice Experiment in Europe

Author

Listed:
  • Damon Willems

    (Maastricht University)

  • Eva-Lotta Hinzpeter

    (Maastricht University)

  • Hessel H. Zee

    (Erasmus University Medical Center)

  • Christopher J. Sayed

    (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill)

  • John R. Ingram

    (Cardiff University, University Hospital of Wales)

  • Charlotte Beaudart

    (Maastricht University
    University of Liege)

  • Silvia M. A. A. Evers

    (Maastricht University
    Netherlands Institute of Mental Health and Addiction)

  • Mickael Hiligsmann

    (Maastricht University)

Abstract

Background and Objective Hidradenitis suppurativa is a chronic inflammatory skin disease that can lead to a substantial reduction in quality of life. Recent studies revealed high levels of unmet care needs of patients with hidradenitis suppurativa, but their preferences in treatment decision making have scarcely been investigated. This study aimed to reveal which treatment attributes adult patients with HS in Europe consider most important in treatment decision-making. Methods A discrete choice experiment was conducted with adult patients with hidradenitis suppurativa in Europe to reveal which treatment attributes are most important when making treatment decisions. Participants were presented with 15 sets of two treatment options and asked for each to choose the treatment they preferred. The treatments were characterized by six attributes informed by a prior literature review and qualitative research: effectiveness, pain reduction, duration of treatment benefit, risk of mild adverse event, risk of serious infection, and mode of administration. A random parameter logit model was used to estimate patients’ preferences with additional subgroup and latent class models used to explore any differences in preferences across patient groups. Results Two hundred and nineteen adult patients with hidradenitis suppurativa were included in the analysis (90% women, mean age 38 years). For all six treatment attributes, significant differences were observed between levels. Given the range of levels of each attribute, the most important treatment attributes were effectiveness (47.9%), followed by pain reduction (17.3%), annual risk of a mild adverse event (14.4%), annual risk of a serious infection (10.3%), mode of administration (5.3%), and duration of treatment benefit (4.8%). Higher levels of effectiveness, namely a 75% or 100% reduction in the abscess and inflammatory nodule count, were preferred over levels of effectiveness primarily investigated in randomized clinical trials of hidradenitis suppurativa (a 50% reduction). Results were largely consistent across subgroups and three latent class groups were identified. Conclusions This study revealed the most important treatment characteristics for patients with hidradenitis suppurativa that can help inform joint patient-physician decision making in the management of hidradenitis suppurativa. Designing future hidradenitis suppurativa treatments according to stated preferences, namely, to offer higher levels of effectiveness and pain improvement without higher risks of adverse events, may increase patients’ treatment concordance and lead to improved disease management outcomes.

Suggested Citation

  • Damon Willems & Eva-Lotta Hinzpeter & Hessel H. Zee & Christopher J. Sayed & John R. Ingram & Charlotte Beaudart & Silvia M. A. A. Evers & Mickael Hiligsmann, 2023. "Patient Preferences in the Management of Hidradenitis Suppurativa: Results of a Multinational Discrete Choice Experiment in Europe," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 16(2), pages 153-164, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:patien:v:16:y:2023:i:2:d:10.1007_s40271-022-00614-7
    DOI: 10.1007/s40271-022-00614-7
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40271-022-00614-7
    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/s40271-022-00614-7?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. Bethan Copsey & James Buchanan & Raymond Fitzpatrick & Sarah E. Lamb & Susan J. Dutton & Jonathan A. Cook, 2019. "Duration of Treatment Effect Should Be Considered in the Design and Interpretation of Clinical Trials: Results of a Discrete Choice Experiment," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 39(4), pages 461-473, May.
    2. Caroline Vass & Dan Rigby & Katherine Payne, 2017. "The Role of Qualitative Research Methods in Discrete Choice Experiments," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 37(3), pages 298-313, April.
    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. Rod Mccoll & Yann Truong & Antonella La Rocca, 2019. "Service guarantees as a base for positioning in B2B," Post-Print hal-02326105, HAL.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    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. 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).
    6. Simon Deeming & Kim Edmunds & Alice Knight & Andrew Searles & Anthony P. Shakeshaft & Christopher M. Doran, 2022. "A Benefit-Cost Analysis of BackTrack, a Multi-Component, Community-Based Intervention for High-Risk Young People in a Rural Australian Setting," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(16), pages 1-12, August.
    7. Axel C. Mühlbacher & Andrew Sadler & Christin Juhnke, 2021. "Personalized diabetes management: what do patients with diabetes mellitus prefer? A discrete choice experiment," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 22(3), pages 425-443, April.
    8. Adewole, Ayooluwa & Shipworth, Michelle & Lemaire, Xavier & Sanderson, Danielle, 2023. "Peer-to-Peer energy trading, independence aspirations and financial benefits among Nigerian households," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 174(C).
    9. Cleland, Jennifer & Porteous, Terry & Ejebu, Ourega-Zoé & Ryan, Mandy & Skåtun, Diane, 2022. "Won't you stay just a little bit longer? A discrete choice experiment of UK doctors’ preferences for delaying retirement," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 126(1), pages 60-68.
    10. Osborne, Matthew & Lambe, Fiona & Ran, Ylva & Dehmel, Naira & Tabacco, Giovanni Alberto & Balungira, Joshua & Pérez-Viana, Borja & Widmark, Erik & Holmlid, Stefan & Verschoor, Arjan, 2022. "Designing development interventions: The application of service design and discrete choice experiments in complex settings," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 158(C).
    11. Colene Bentley & Sara Izadi-Najafabadi & Adam Raymakers & Helen McTaggart-Cowan, 2022. "Qualitative Research Informing a Preference Study on Selecting Cannabis for Cancer Survivor Symptom Management: Design of a Discrete Choice Experiment," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 15(4), pages 497-507, July.
    12. Lina Isacs & Cecilia Håkansson & Therese Lindahl & Ulrika Gunnarsson-Östling & Pernilla Andersson, 2024. "‘I didn’t count “willingness to pay†as part of the value’: Monetary valuation through respondents’ perspectives," Environmental Values, , vol. 33(2), pages 163-188, April.
    13. Gregory Merlo & Mieke Driel & Lisa Hall, 2020. "Systematic review and validity assessment of methods used in discrete choice experiments of primary healthcare professionals," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 10(1), pages 1-9, December.
    14. Elizabeth Clearfield & Ellen Tambor & Ellen M. Janssen & Donna A. Messner, 2021. "Increasing the Patient-Centeredness of Health Economics and Outcomes Research Through Patient Engagement in Core Outcome Set Development," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 14(4), pages 413-420, July.
    15. 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).
    16. Marco Boeri & Alan J. McMichael & Joseph P. M. Kane & Francis A. O’Neill & Frank Kee, 2018. "Physician-Specific Maximum Acceptable Risk in Personalized Medicine: Implications for Medical Decision Making," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 38(5), pages 593-600, July.
    17. Ruixuan Jiang & Eleanor Pullenayegum & James W. Shaw & Axel Mühlbacher & Todd A. Lee & Surrey Walton & Thomas Kohlmann & Richard Norman & A. Simon Pickard, 2023. "Comparison of Preferences and Data Quality between Discrete Choice Experiments Conducted in Online and Face-to-Face Respondents," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 43(6), pages 667-679, August.
    18. Sanjeewa Kularatna & Michelle Allen & Ruvini M. Hettiarachchi & Fiona Crawford-Williams & Sameera Senanayake & David Brain & Nicolas H. Hart & Bogda Koczwara & Carolyn Ee & Raymond J. Chan, 2023. "Cancer Survivor Preferences for Models of Breast Cancer Follow-Up Care: Selecting Attributes for Inclusion in a Discrete Choice Experiment," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 16(4), pages 371-383, July.
    19. Kim Edmunds & Laura Wall & Scott Brown & Andrew Searles & Anthony P. Shakeshaft & Christopher M. Doran, 2021. "Exploring Community-Based Options for Reducing Youth Crime," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(10), pages 1-12, May.
    20. Sarah Costa & Dean A. Regier & Adam J. N. Raymakers & Samantha Pollard, 2021. "Genomic Testing for Relapsed and Refractory Lymphoid Cancers: Understanding Patient Values," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 14(2), pages 187-196, March.

    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:16:y:2023:i:2:d:10.1007_s40271-022-00614-7. 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 .

    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.