IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/patien/v15y2022i1d10.1007_s40271-021-00536-w.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Systematic and Critical Review of Discrete Choice Experiments in Asthma and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

Author

Listed:
  • Hannah Collacott

    (Evidera, The Ark)

  • Dian Zhang

    (Evidera)

  • Sebastian Heidenreich

    (Evidera, The Ark)

  • Tommi Tervonen

    (Evidera, The Ark
    University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen)

Abstract

Background Regulators have called for greater emphasis on the role of the patient voice to inform medical product development and decision making, and expert guidelines and reports for asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) both explicitly recommend the consideration of patient preferences in the management of these diseases. Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) are commonly used to quantify stakeholders’ treatment preferences and estimate the trade-offs they are willing to make between outcomes such as treatment benefits and risks. Objective The aim of this systematic literature review is to provide an up-to-date and critical review of DCEs published in asthma and COPD; specifically, we aim to evaluate the subject of preference studies conducted in asthma and COPD, what attributes have been included, stakeholders’ preferences, and the consistency in reporting of instrument development, testing and reporting of results. Methods A systematic review of published DCEs on asthma and COPD treatments was conducted using Embase, Medline and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Studies were included if they included a DCE conducted in a relevant population (e.g. patients with asthma or COPD or their caregivers, asthma or COPD-treating clinicians, or the general population), and reported quantitative outcomes on participants’ preferences. Study characteristics were summarised descriptively, and descriptive analyses of attribute categories, consistency in reporting on key criteria, and stakeholder preferences were undertaken. Results A total of 33 eligible studies were identified, including 28 unique DCEs. The majority (n = 20; 71%) of studies were conducted in a patient sample. Studies focused on inhaler treatments, and included attributes in five key categories: symptoms and treatment benefits (n = 23; 82%), treatment convenience (n = 19; 68%), treatment cost (n = 17; 61%), treatment risks (n = 13; 46%), and other (n = 10; 36%). Symptoms and treatment benefits were the attributes most frequently ranked as important to patients (n = 26, 72%), followed by treatment risks (n = 7, 39%). Several studies (n = 9, 32%) did not qualitatively pre-test their DCE, and a majority did not report the uncertainty in estimated outcomes (n = 18; 64%). Conclusions DCEs in asthma and COPD have focused on treatment benefits and convenience, with less evidence generated on participants’ risk tolerance. Quality criteria and reporting standards are needed to promote study quality and ensure consistency in reporting between studies.

Suggested Citation

  • Hannah Collacott & Dian Zhang & Sebastian Heidenreich & Tommi Tervonen, 2022. "A Systematic and Critical Review of Discrete Choice Experiments in Asthma and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 15(1), pages 55-68, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:patien:v:15:y:2022:i:1:d:10.1007_s40271-021-00536-w
    DOI: 10.1007/s40271-021-00536-w
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40271-021-00536-w
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40271-021-00536-w?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.

    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:15:y:2022:i:1:d:10.1007_s40271-021-00536-w. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.