IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0129120.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Patient Preferences for Treatment of Psoriasis with Biologicals: A Discrete Choice Experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Christian Kromer
  • Marthe-Lisa Schaarschmidt
  • Astrid Schmieder
  • Raphael Herr
  • Sergij Goerdt
  • Wiebke K Peitsch

Abstract

Treatment dissatisfaction and non-adherence are common among patients with psoriasis, partly due to discordance between individual preferences and recommended treatments. However, patients are more satisfied with biologicals than with other treatments. The aim of our study was to assess patient preferences for treatment of psoriasis with biologicals by using computer-based conjoint analysis. Biologicals approved for psoriasis in Germany were decomposed into outcome (probability of 50% and 90% improvement, time until response, sustainability of success, probability of mild and severe adverse events (AE), probability of American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20 response) and process attributes (treatment location, frequency, duration and delivery method). Impact of sociodemographic and socioeconomic characteristics and disease severity on Relative Importance Scores (RIS) of each attribute was assessed with analyses of variance, post hoc tests, and multivariate regression. Averaged across the cohort of 200 participants with moderate-to-severe psoriasis, preferences were highest for avoiding severe AE (RIS = 17.3), followed by 90% improvement (RIS = 14.0) and avoiding mild AE (RIS = 10.5). Process attributes reached intermediate RIS (8.2–8.8). Men were more concerned about efficacy than women (50% improvement: RIS = 6.9 vs. 9.5, p = 0.008; β = -0.191, p = 0.011 in multivariate models; 90% improvement: RIS = 12.1 vs. 15.4, p = 0.002; β = -0.197, p = 0.009). Older participants judged the probability of 50% and 90% improvement less relevant than younger ones (50% improvement: Pearson’s Correlation (PC) = -0.161, p = 0.022; β = -0.219, p = 0.017; 90% improvement: PC = -0.155, p = 0.028; β = -0.264, p = 0.004) but worried more about severe AE (PC = 0.175, p = 0.013; β = 0.166, p = 0.082). In summary, participants with moderate-to-severe psoriasis were most interested in safety of biologicals, followed by efficacy, but preferences varied with sociodemographic characteristics and working status. Based on this knowledge, physicians should identify preferences of each individual patient during shared decision-making in order to optimize treatment satisfaction, adherence and outcome.

Suggested Citation

  • Christian Kromer & Marthe-Lisa Schaarschmidt & Astrid Schmieder & Raphael Herr & Sergij Goerdt & Wiebke K Peitsch, 2015. "Patient Preferences for Treatment of Psoriasis with Biologicals: A Discrete Choice Experiment," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(6), pages 1-15, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0129120
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0129120
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0129120
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0129120&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0129120?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. Trine Kjær & Mickael Bech & Dorte Gyrd‐Hansen & Kristian Hart‐Hansen, 2006. "Ordering effect and price sensitivity in discrete choice experiments: need we worry?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(11), pages 1217-1228, November.
    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. Joachim Marti, 2012. "Assessing preferences for improved smoking cessation medications: a discrete choice experiment," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 13(5), pages 533-548, October.
    2. Nguyen, Thanh Cong & Le, Hoa Thu & Nguyen, Hang Dieu & Ngo, Mai Thanh & Nguyen, Hong Quang, 2021. "Examining ordering effects and strategic behaviour in a discrete choice experiment," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 394-413.
    3. Aki Tsuchiya & Nick Bansback & Arne Risa Hole & Brendan Mulhern, 2019. "Manipulating the 5 Dimensions of the EuroQol Instrument: The Effects on Self-Reporting Actual Health and Valuing Hypothetical Health States," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 39(4), pages 380-392, May.
    4. Logar, Ivana & Brouwer, Roy & Campbell, Danny, 2020. "Does attribute order influence attribute-information processing in discrete choice experiments?," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(C).
    5. Moser, Riccarda & Raffaelli, Roberta, 2011. "Exploiting cut-off information to incorporate context effect: a discrete choice experiment on small fruits in a Alpine region," 2011 International Congress, August 30-September 2, 2011, Zurich, Switzerland 114646, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    6. Francesco Cerigioni & Simone Galperti, 2021. "Listing specs: The effect of framing attributes on choice," Economics Working Papers 1775, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
    7. Katrin Auspurg & Annette Jäckle, 2017. "First Equals Most Important? Order Effects in Vignette-Based Measurement," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 46(3), pages 490-539, August.
    8. Sandorf, Erlend Dancke & Crastes dit Sourd, Romain & Mahieu, Pierre-Alexandre, 2018. "The effect of attribute-alternative matrix displays on preferences and processing strategies," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 29(C), pages 113-132.
    9. Krucien, Nicolas & Ryan, Mandy & Hermens, Frouke, 2017. "Visual attention in multi-attributes choices: What can eye-tracking tell us?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 135(C), pages 251-267.
    10. 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.
    11. Jorien Veldwijk & Stella Maria Marceta & Joffre Dan Swait & Stefan Adriaan Lipman & Esther Wilhelmina Bekker-Grob, 2023. "Taking the Shortcut: Simplifying Heuristics in Discrete Choice Experiments," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 16(4), pages 301-315, July.
    12. Elizabeth Kinter & Thomas Prior & Christopher Carswell & John Bridges, 2012. "A Comparison of Two Experimental Design Approaches in Applying Conjoint Analysis in Patient-Centered Outcomes Research," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 5(4), pages 279-294, December.
    13. Mandy Ryan & Nicolas Krucien & Frouke Hermens, 2018. "The eyes have it: Using eye tracking to inform information processing strategies in multi‐attributes choices," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(4), pages 709-721, April.
    14. Mehdi Ammi & Christine Peyron, 2016. "Heterogeneity in general practitioners’ preferences for quality improvement programs: a choice experiment and policy simulation in France," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 6(1), pages 1-11, December.
    15. Krueger, Alan B. & Kuziemko, Ilyana, 2013. "The demand for health insurance among uninsured Americans: Results of a survey experiment and implications for policy," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(5), pages 780-793.
    16. Robert W. Paterson & Kevin J. Boyle & Christopher F. Parmeter & James E. Neumann & Paul De Civita, 2008. "Heterogeneity in preferences for smoking cessation," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 17(12), pages 1363-1377.
    17. Kevin Boyle & Semra Özdemir, 2009. "Convergent Validity of Attribute-Based, Choice Questions in Stated-Preference Studies," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 42(2), pages 247-264, February.
    18. Lien Nguyen & Hanna Jokimäki & Ismo Linnosmaa & Eirini-Christina Saloniki & Laurie Batchelder & Juliette Malley & Hui Lu & Peter Burge & Birgit Trukeschitz & Julien Forder, 2022. "Valuing informal carers’ quality of life using best-worst scaling—Finnish preference weights for the Adult Social Care Outcomes Toolkit for carers (ASCOT-Carer)," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 23(3), pages 357-374, April.
    19. Brigitte Essers & Debby Helvoort-Postulart & Martin Prins & Martino Neumann & Carmen Dirksen, 2010. "Does the Inclusion of a Cost Attribute Result in Different Preferences for the Surgical Treatment of Primary Basal Cell Carcinoma?," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 28(6), pages 507-520, June.
    20. Lopez-Becerra, E.I. & Alcon, F., 2021. "Social desirability bias in the environmental economic valuation: An inferred valuation approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).

    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:plo:pone00:0129120. 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.