IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/patien/v18y2025i1d10.1007_s40271-024-00706-6.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Discrete Choice Experiments to Elicit Patient Preferences for the Treatment of Major Depressive Disorder: A Systematic Review

Author

Listed:
  • Susan dosReis

    (University of Maryland Baltimore
    PAVE Center)

  • Dafne Espinal Pena

    (University of Maryland Baltimore)

  • Alexandra Fincannon

    (University of Maryland Baltimore)

  • Emily F. Gorman

    (University of Maryland Baltimore)

  • Alejandro Amill-Rosario

    (University of Maryland Baltimore
    PAVE Center)

Abstract

Background Individual preferences for treatment options for major depressive disorder can impact therapeutic decision making, adherence, and ultimately outcomes. Objectives This systematic review of discrete choice experiments (DCEs) on patient preferences for major depressive disorder treatment assessed the range of DCE applications in major depressive disorder to document patient stakeholder involvement in DCE development and to identify the relative importance of treatment attributes. Methods We searched MEDLINE via Ovid (1946-present), EMBASE (Elsevier interface), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Wiley interface), and PsycINFO (EBSCO interface) databases on 29 May, 2024. Covidence software facilitated the review, which four members completed independently. The review was conducted in two phases: title and abstract and then a full-text review. We used an established quality reporting tool to evaluate selected articles. The Covidence extraction tool was adapted for this study. Results A total of 19 articles were included in this review. Most studies elicited preferences for depression treatment (63.2%) and care delivery (10.5%). Two assessed willingness to pay. Individuals prefer a combination of medicine and counseling over each treatment alone. Treatment efficacy, relapse prevention, and symptom relief were among the most important attributes. Individuals were willing to accept larger risks to achieve symptom improvement. Few studies examined preference heterogeneity with latent subgroups. Conclusions Discrete choice experiments for major depressive disorder treatment preferences enable an assessment of trade-offs for first-line therapeutic options. Patient stakeholders are infrequently involved as collaborators in the DCE development. Few examined preference heterogeneity among subgroups.

Suggested Citation

  • Susan dosReis & Dafne Espinal Pena & Alexandra Fincannon & Emily F. Gorman & Alejandro Amill-Rosario, 2025. "Discrete Choice Experiments to Elicit Patient Preferences for the Treatment of Major Depressive Disorder: A Systematic Review," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 18(1), pages 19-33, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:patien:v:18:y:2025:i:1:d:10.1007_s40271-024-00706-6
    DOI: 10.1007/s40271-024-00706-6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40271-024-00706-6
    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/s40271-024-00706-6?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.

    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:18:y:2025:i:1:d:10.1007_s40271-024-00706-6. 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.