Swedish
Albanian
Arabic
Armenian
Azerbaijani
Belarusian
Bengali
Bosnian
Catalan
Czech
Danish
Deutsch
Dutch
English
Estonian
Finnish
Français
Greek
Haitian Creole
Hebrew
Hindi
Hungarian
Icelandic
Indonesian
Irish
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Latvian
Lithuanian
Macedonian
Mongolian
Norwegian
Persian
Polish
Portuguese
Romanian
Russian
Serbian
Slovak
Slovenian
Spanish
Swahili
Swedish
Turkish
Ukrainian
Vietnamese
Български
中文(简体)
中文(繁體)
Patient 2015-Feb

Caregiver preferences for emerging duchenne muscular dystrophy treatments: a comparison of best-worst scaling and conjoint analysis.

Endast registrerade användare kan översätta artiklar
Logga in Bli medlem
Länken sparas på Urklipp
Ilene L Hollin
Holly L Peay
John F P Bridges

Nyckelord

Abstrakt

BACKGROUND

Through Patient-Focused Drug Development, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) documents the perspective of patients and caregivers and are currently conducting 20 public meetings on a limited number of disease areas. Parent Project Muscular Dystrophy (PPMD), an advocacy organization for Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD), has demonstrated a community-engaged program of preference research that would complement the FDA's approach.

OBJECTIVE

Our objective was to compare two stated-preference methods, best-worst scaling (BWS) and conjoint analysis, within a study measuring caregivers' DMD-treatment preferences.

METHODS

Within one survey, two preference-elicitation methods were applied to 18 potential treatments incorporating six attributes and three levels. For each treatment profile, caregivers identified the best and worst feature and intention to use the treatment. We conducted three analyses to compare the elicitation methods using parameter estimates, conditional attribute importance and policy simulations focused on the 18 treatment profiles. For each, concordance between the results was compared using Spearman's rho.

RESULTS

BWS and conjoint analysis produced similar parameter estimates (p < 0.01); conditional attribute importance (p < 0.01); and policy simulations (p < 0.01). Greatest concordance was observed for the benefit and risk parameters, with differences observed for nausea and knowledge about the drug-where a lack of monotonicity was observed when using conjoint analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

The observed concordance between approaches demonstrates the reliability of the stated-preference methods. Given the simplicity of combining BWS and conjoint analysis on single profiles, a combination approach is easily adopted. Minor irregularities for the conjoint-analysis results could not be explained by additional analyses and needs to be the focus of future research.

Gå med på vår
facebook-sida

Den mest kompletta databasen med medicinska örter som stöds av vetenskapen

  • Fungerar på 55 språk
  • Växtbaserade botemedel som stöds av vetenskap
  • Örter igenkänning av bild
  • Interaktiv GPS-karta - märka örter på plats (kommer snart)
  • Läs vetenskapliga publikationer relaterade till din sökning
  • Sök efter medicinska örter efter deras effekter
  • Organisera dina intressen och håll dig uppdaterad med nyheterna, kliniska prövningar och patent

Skriv ett symptom eller en sjukdom och läs om örter som kan hjälpa, skriv en ört och se sjukdomar och symtom den används mot.
* All information baseras på publicerad vetenskaplig forskning

Google Play badgeApp Store badge