IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/hecrev/v13y2023i1d10.1186_s13561-023-00431-0.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Patient preferences for epilepsy treatment: a systematic review of discrete choice experimental studies

Author

Listed:
  • Sinaa Al-Aqeel

    (King Saud University)

  • Reem Alotaiwi

    (King Saud University)

  • Bushra Albugami

    (King Saud University)

Abstract

Background This review aimed to 1) identify and assess the quality of discrete choice experiments (DCEs) examining preferences related to epilepsy treatment; 2) summarize the attributes and attribute levels measured in these studies; 3) identify how researchers selected and developed these attributes; and 4) identify which attributes are most important for epilepsy patients. Methods A systematic literature review using PubMed, Web of Science and Scopus databases from database inception to February or April 2022. We included primary discrete-choice experiments eliciting preferences for various attributes of pharmacological and surgical interventions in patients diagnosed with epilepsy or the parents/carers of children with epilepsy. We excluded non- primary studies, studies assessing preferences for nonpharmacological treatment and studies that elicit preferences using methods other than discrete choice experiments. Two authors independently selected studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias of studies. The quality of the included studies was assessed using two validated checklists. Study characteristics and findings were summarized descriptively. Results A total of seven studies were included in the review. The majority of studies explored patients’ preferences, and two compared the preferences of patients with physicians. The majority (n = 6) compared two medications, and one compared two surgical options to continuing medication options. The studies examined 44 attributes in total, including side effects (n = 26), efficacy expressed as being seizure free or have fewer seizures (n = 8), costs (n = 3), dosing frequency (n = 3), duration of side effects (n = 2), mortality (n = 1), long-term problems after surgery (n = 1) and surgical options (n = 1). The findings indicate that people with epilepsy have strong preferences for improving seizure control, which was ranked as the top priority in all studies. Patients also have a strong preference for the reduction of adverse effects and may be willing to make trade-offs between improved seizure control and reduction of long-term side effects that may impact their quality of life. Conclusions The use of DCEs in measuring patients’ preference for epilepsy treatment is accumulating. However, inadequate reporting of methodological details may reduce decision-makers’ confidence in the findings. Suggestions for future research are provided.

Suggested Citation

  • Sinaa Al-Aqeel & Reem Alotaiwi & Bushra Albugami, 2023. "Patient preferences for epilepsy treatment: a systematic review of discrete choice experimental studies," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 13(1), pages 1-13, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:hecrev:v:13:y:2023:i:1:d:10.1186_s13561-023-00431-0
    DOI: 10.1186/s13561-023-00431-0
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1186/s13561-023-00431-0
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1186/s13561-023-00431-0?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Louviere, Jordan J. & Lancsar, Emily, 2009. "Choice experiments in health: the good, the bad, the ugly and toward a brighter future," Health Economics, Policy and Law, Cambridge University Press, vol. 4(4), pages 527-546, October.
    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. Filiptseva, Anna & Filler, Günther & Odening, Martin, 2022. "Compensation Options for Quarantine Costs in Plant Production," 62nd Annual Conference, Stuttgart, Germany, September 7-9, 2022 329595, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA).
    2. Anna Nicolet & Antoinette D I van Asselt & Karin M Vermeulen & Paul F M Krabbe, 2020. "Value judgment of new medical treatments: Societal and patient perspectives to inform priority setting in The Netherlands," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(7), pages 1-18, July.
    3. Thomas G. Poder & Nathalie Carrier & Mathieu Roy & Chantal Camden, 2020. "A Discrete Choice Experiment on Women’s Preferences for Water Immersion During Labor and Birth: Identification, Refinement and Selection of Attributes and Levels," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(6), pages 1-11, March.
    4. Vujicic, Marko & Shengelia, Bakhuti & Alfano, Marco & Thu, Ha Bui, 2011. "Physician shortages in rural Vietnam: Using a labor market approach to inform policy," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 73(7), pages 970-977.
    5. Ilene L. Hollin & Jonathan Paskett & Anne L. R. Schuster & Norah L. Crossnohere & John F. P. Bridges, 2022. "Best–Worst Scaling and the Prioritization of Objects in Health: A Systematic Review," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 40(9), pages 883-899, September.
    6. Buckley, Neil J. & Cuff, Katherine & Hurley, Jeremiah & McLeod, Logan & Mestelman, Stuart & Cameron, David, 2012. "An experimental investigation of mixed systems of public and private health care finance," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 84(3), pages 713-729.
    7. Paul F M Krabbe, 2013. "A Generalized Measurement Model to Quantify Health: The Multi-Attribute Preference Response Model," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(11), pages 1-12, November.
    8. Alessandro Mengoni & Chiara Seghieri & Sabina Nuti, 2013. "The application of discrete choice experiments in health economics: a systematic review of the literature," Working Papers 201301, Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna of Pisa, Istituto di Management.
    9. Christian Pfarr & Andreas Schmid & Morten Raun Mørkbak, 2018. "Modelling Heterogeneous Preferences for Income Redistribution–An Application of Continuous and Discrete Distributions," Review of Income and Wealth, International Association for Research in Income and Wealth, vol. 64(2), pages 270-294, June.
    10. Hoyos, David, 2010. "The state of the art of environmental valuation with discrete choice experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(8), pages 1595-1603, June.
    11. De Ayala Bilbao, Amaya & Hoyos Ramos, David & Mariel Chladkova, Petr, 2012. "Landscape valuation through discrete choice experiments: Current practice and future research reflections," BILTOKI 1134-8984, Universidad del País Vasco - Departamento de Economía Aplicada III (Econometría y Estadística).
    12. West, Grant H. & Snell, Heather & Kovacs, Kent & Nayga, Rodolfo M., 2020. "Estimation of the preferences for the intertemporal services from groundwater," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304220, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    13. Anthony Scott & Peter Sivey, 2017. "Motivation and Competition in Health Care," Melbourne Institute Working Paper Series wp2017n05, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, The University of Melbourne.
    14. Kim, Ga-Eun & Kim, Ju-Hee & Yoo, Seung-Hoon, 2019. "South Korean consumers’ preferences for eco-friendly gasoline sedans: Results from a choice experiment survey," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 1-7.
    15. Pedersen, Line Bjørnskov & Hess, Stephane & Kjær, Trine, 2016. "Asymmetric information and user orientation in general practice: Exploring the agency relationship in a best–worst scaling study," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 115-130.
    16. Caroline M. Vass & Niall J. Davison & Geert Stichele & Katherine Payne, 2020. "A Picture is Worth a Thousand Words: The Role of Survey Training Materials in Stated-Preference Studies," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 13(2), pages 163-173, April.
    17. Axel Mühlbacher & Uwe Junker & Christin Juhnke & Edgar Stemmler & Thomas Kohlmann & Friedhelm Leverkus & Matthias Nübling, 2015. "Chronic pain patients’ treatment preferences: a discrete-choice experiment," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 16(6), pages 613-628, July.
    18. Esther W. de Bekker‐Grob & Mandy Ryan & Karen Gerard, 2012. "Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(2), pages 145-172, February.
    19. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Rose, John M. & Oppewal, Harmen & Lancsar, Emily, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part II. Conceptualisation of external validity, sources and explanations of bias and effectiveness of mitigation methods," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    20. Lew, Daniel K., 2018. "Discounting future payments in stated preference choice experiments," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 150-164.

    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:hecrev:v:13:y:2023:i:1:d:10.1186_s13561-023-00431-0. 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/economics/journal/13561 .

    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.