IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/patien/v8y2015i5p385-395.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Understanding Patient Preferences in Medication Nonadherence: A Review of Stated Preference Data

Author

Listed:
  • Tracey-Lea Laba
  • Beverley Essue
  • Merel Kimman
  • Stephen Jan

Abstract

Nonadherence is a global problem undermining the cost-effectiveness of evidence-based medications. Aligning treatment choices with patient preferences may promote adherent behaviour: eliciting patient treatment preferences may help resolve the problem of nonadherence. As there is no reliable measure of nonadherent behaviour that can be used to derive preferences, stated-preference techniques offer a robust alternative. To understand patient preferences in medication nonadherence, we systematically appraised full-text English studies (from database inception to 24 February 2014) involving participants evaluating hypothetical scenarios to elicit preferences as an explicit means to understand medication nonadherence. Study characteristics (e.g. setting, disease, stated-preference method), attribute type and influence on choice were extracted. Seventeen full-text articles (4,456 patients) were included in the review, which reports stated-preference elicitation studies across a wide range of chronic and acute conditions. All studies were conducted in high-income settings. The influence of drug-related factors was predominant in patients’ preferences for treatment. Patients preferred efficacious over safe medications except when considering the duration of therapy, but dosing and cost appeared more important when contemplating adherence. Patient characteristics, particularly medication experience, significantly influenced preferences. A disparity between stated preferences for treatment and adherence was reported. When using stated-preference techniques to understand nonadherence, this manuscript highlights that there is much room for methodological development. Studies outside of high-income settings are needed, particularly in relation to chronic diseases, for which nonadherence poses a substantial economic burden to health systems and patients. To inform the problem of sustaining adherence, prospective research is needed to understand how preferences change with time. The usefulness of stated-preference techniques to inform policy and practice requires a better understanding of how stated preferences relate to actual adherence behaviour. Copyright Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Suggested Citation

  • Tracey-Lea Laba & Beverley Essue & Merel Kimman & Stephen Jan, 2015. "Understanding Patient Preferences in Medication Nonadherence: A Review of Stated Preference Data," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 8(5), pages 385-395, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:patien:v:8:y:2015:i:5:p:385-395
    DOI: 10.1007/s40271-014-0099-3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s40271-014-0099-3
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40271-014-0099-3?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. Madeleine T. King & Jane Hall & Emily Lancsar & Denzil Fiebig & Ishrat Hossain & Jordan Louviere & Helen K. Reddel & Christine R. Jenkins, 2007. "Patient preferences for managing asthma: results from a discrete choice experiment," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(7), pages 703-717, July.
    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. Ellen M. Janssen & Jodi B. Segal & John F. P. Bridges, 2016. "A Framework for Instrument Development of a Choice Experiment: An Application to Type 2 Diabetes," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 9(5), pages 465-479, October.
    2. Merel L. Kimman & Marlies S. Wijsenbeek & Sander M. J. van Kuijk & Kioa L. Wijnsma & Nicole C. A. J. van de Kar & Marjolein Storm & Xana Jaarsveld & Carmen D. Dirksen, 2019. "Validity of the Patient Experiences and Satisfaction with Medications (PESaM) Questionnaire," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 12(1), pages 149-162, February.

    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. Arne Hole & Julie Kolstad, 2012. "Mixed logit estimation of willingness to pay distributions: a comparison of models in preference and WTP space using data from a health-related choice experiment," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 42(2), pages 445-469, April.
    2. Landmann, D. & Feil, J.-H. & Lagerkvist, C.J. & Otter, V., 2018. "Designing capacity development activities of small-scale farmers in developing countries based on discrete choice experiments," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277738, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    3. Jeremy Webb & Max Briggs & Clevo Wilson, 2018. "Breaking automotive modal lock-in: a choice modelling study of Jakarta commuters," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 20(1), pages 47-68, January.
    4. Rosalie Viney & Richard Norman & John Brazier & Paula Cronin & Madeleine T. King & Julie Ratcliffe & Deborah Street, 2014. "An Australian Discrete Choice Experiment To Value Eq‐5d Health States," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 23(6), pages 729-742, June.
    5. Damian Clarke & Sonia Oreffice & Climent Quintana‐Domeque, 2019. "The demand for season of birth," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 34(5), pages 707-723, August.
    6. Richard Norman & Rosalie Viney & John Brazier & Leonie Burgess & Paula Cronin & Madeleine King & Julie Ratcliffe & Deborah Street, 2014. "Valuing SF-6D Health States Using a Discrete Choice Experiment," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 34(6), pages 773-786, August.
    7. Waleska Sigüernza & Petr Mariel, 2013. "Valoración económica de los servicios sanitarios en la Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco," Hacienda Pública Española / Review of Public Economics, IEF, vol. 207(4), pages 71-99, December.
    8. Emily Lancsar & Denzil G. Fiebig & Arne Risa Hole, 2017. "Discrete Choice Experiments: A Guide to Model Specification, Estimation and Software," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 35(7), pages 697-716, July.
    9. V. Meusel & E. Mentzakis & P. Baji & G. Fiorentini & F. Paolucci, 2023. "Priority setting in the German healthcare system: results from a discrete choice experiment," International Journal of Health Economics and Management, Springer, vol. 23(3), pages 411-431, September.
    10. Aleksandra Torbica & Giovanni Fattore & Fabio Ayala, 2014. "Eliciting Preferences to Inform Patient-Centred Policies: the Case of Psoriasis," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 32(2), pages 209-223, February.
    11. Damian Clarke & Sonia Oreffice & Climent Quintana‐Domeque, 2021. "On the Value of Birth Weight," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 83(5), pages 1130-1159, October.
    12. Mandeville, Kate L. & Ulaya, Godwin & Lagarde, Mylène & Muula, Adamson S. & Dzowela, Titha & Hanson, Kara, 2016. "The use of specialty training to retain doctors in Malawi: A discrete choice experiment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 169(C), pages 109-118.
    13. Kent Sweeting & Jennifer Whitty & Paul Scuffham & Michael Yelland, 2011. "Patient Preferences for Treatment of Achilles Tendon Pain," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 4(1), pages 45-54, January.
    14. Domino Determann & Dorte Gyrd-Hansen & G. Ardine de Wit & Esther W. de Bekker-Grob & Ewout W. Steyerberg & Mattijs S. Lambooij & Line Bjørnskov Pedersen, 2019. "Designing Unforced Choice Experiments to Inform Health Care Decision Making: Implications of Using Opt-Out, Neither, or Status Quo Alternatives in Discrete Choice Experiments," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 39(6), pages 681-692, August.
    15. Emily Lancsar & Joffre Swait, 2014. "Reconceptualising the External Validity of Discrete Choice Experiments," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 32(10), pages 951-965, October.
    16. Sivey, Peter & Scott, Anthony & Witt, Julia & Joyce, Catherine & Humphreys, John, 2012. "Junior doctors’ preferences for specialty choice," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(6), pages 813-823.
    17. Jesús Clemente López & Pedro García Castrillo & María A. González Alvarez & Marcos Sanso Frago, 2014. "Una evaluación de la efectividad de la formación ocupacional para desempleados antes y después de la crisis económica: el caso de Aragón," Hacienda Pública Española / Review of Public Economics, IEF, vol. 208(1), pages 77-106, March.
    18. Denzil G. Fiebig, 2017. "Big Data: Will It Improve Patient-Centered Care?," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 10(2), pages 133-139, April.
    19. Emily Lancsar & Peter Burge, 2014. "Choice modelling research in health economics," Chapters, in: Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly (ed.), Handbook of Choice Modelling, chapter 28, pages 675-687, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    20. Hole, Arne Risa, 2008. "Modelling heterogeneity in patients' preferences for the attributes of a general practitioner appointment," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(4), pages 1078-1094, July.

    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:8:y:2015:i:5:p:385-395. 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.