Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Patient Preferences in the Medical Product Life Cycle: What do Stakeholders Think? Semi-Structured Qualitative Interviews in Europe and the USA
Department of Pharmaceutical and Pharmacological Sciences,KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Applied Research Division for Cognitive and Psychological ScienceIEO European Institute of Oncology, Milan, Italy; Faculty of Medicine, School of Women’s and Children’s HealthUniversity of New South Wales, Kensington, Australia; Behavioural Sciences Unit, Kids Cancer CentreSydney Children’s Hospital, Randwick, Australia.
Department of Pharmaceutical and Pharmacological Sciences, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Erasmus School of Health Policy & Management (ESHPM) and Erasmus Choice Modelling Centre (ECMC), Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Show others and affiliations
2019 (English)In: Patient, ISSN 1178-1653, E-ISSN 1178-1661, Vol. 12, no 5, p. 513-526Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Background

Patient preferences (PP), which are investigated in PP studies using qualitative or quantitative methods, are a growing area of interest to the following stakeholders involved in the medical product lifecycle: academics, health technology assessment bodies, payers, industry, patients, physicians, and regulators. However, the use of PP in decisions along the medical product lifecycle remains limited. As the adoption of PP heavily relies on these stakeholders, knowledge of their perceptions of PP is critical.

Objective

This study aimed to characterize stakeholders’ attitudes, needs, and concerns with respect to PP in decision making along the medical product lifecycle.

Methods

Semi-structured interviews (n = 143) were conducted with academics (n = 24), health technology assessment/payer representatives (n = 24), industry representatives (n = 24), patients, caregivers and patient representatives (n = 24), physicians (n = 24), and regulators (n = 23) from seven European countries and the USA. Interviews were conducted between April and August 2017. The framework method was used to organize the data and identify themes and key findings in each interviewed stakeholder group.

Results

Interviewees reported being unfamiliar (43%), moderately familiar (42%), or very familiar (15%) with preference methods and studies. Interviewees across stakeholder groups generally supported the idea of using PP in the medical product lifecycle but expressed mixed opinions about the feasibility and impact of using PP in decision making. Interviewees from all stakeholder groups stressed the importance of increasing stakeholders’ understanding of the concept of PP and preference methods and ensuring patients’ understanding of the questions asked in PP studies. Key concerns and needs in each interviewed stakeholder group were as follows: (1) academics: investigating the validity, reliability, reproducibility, and generalizability of preference methods; (2) health technology assessment/payer representatives: developing quality criteria for evaluating PP studies and gaining insights into how to weigh them in reimbursement/payer decision making; (3) industry representatives: obtaining guidance on PP studies and recognition on the importance of PP from decision makers; (4) patients, caregivers, and patient representatives: providing an incentive and adequate information towards patients when participating in PP studies; (5) physicians: avoiding bias as a result of commercial agendas in PP studies and clarifying how to deal with subjective and emotional elements when measuring PP; and (6) regulators: avoiding the misuse of PP study results to overrule the traditional efficacy and safety criteria used for marketing authorization and obtaining robust PP study results.

Conclusions

Despite the interest all interviewed stakeholder groups reported in PP, the effective use of PP in decision making across the medical product lifecycle is currently hampered by a lack of standardization and consensus on how to both measure and use PP.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2019. Vol. 12, no 5, p. 513-526
National Category
Social and Clinical Pharmacy
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-387688DOI: 10.1007/s40271-019-00367-wISI: 000481773600007PubMedID: 31222436OAI: oai:DiVA.org:uu-387688DiVA, id: diva2:1330215
Projects
IMI-PREFER
Funder
EU, Horizon 2020Available from: 2019-06-25 Created: 2019-06-25 Last updated: 2019-09-30Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

fulltext(712 kB)44 downloads
File information
File name FULLTEXT01.pdfFile size 712 kBChecksum SHA-512
ed483bb0940fe7f4d496b36b5f1f78a720ab674b64b4987be0da0deaab27ae78618ddd11efac76571b99a4dad7db0f532e68f8e621330a79a0019d8d2939092b
Type fulltextMimetype application/pdf

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMed

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Schölin Bywall, Karin
By organisation
Centre for Research Ethics and Bioethics
In the same journal
Patient
Social and Clinical Pharmacy

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar
Total: 44 downloads
The number of downloads is the sum of all downloads of full texts. It may include eg previous versions that are now no longer available

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn
Total: 58 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf