IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/patien/v3y2010i4p285-294.html

Analysis of Patients’ Preferences

Author

Listed:
  • Axel Mühlbacher

  • Matthias Nübling

Abstract

Background: Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a complex neuropsychiatric disorder that affects children and young people, as well as adults. Since ADHD does not produce specific organic characteristics, behavior and preferences are crucial to diagnosis and treatment. Comprehensive therapy concepts should take full account of the needs of the patients. Objective: To document therapy attributes that are important from the adults’ perspective and to analyze findings from two different valuation approaches used in the same survey. Methods: A self-administered survey measuring attitudes and preferences was conducted in Germany in 2009 (n=329). Adult patients (aged ≥18 years) were recruited from all over Germany, with the help of patient advocacy organizations. Attitudes were measured and analyzed using a classic rating scale in 5-point Likert format. Discrete-choice experiment (DCE) scenarios were developed using a fractional factorial design and results were analyzed using random effects logit models. Results: The aspect of highest importance for the respondents was that social function (job, studies, friendships) was not impaired (coefficient 2.115; standard error 0.111). The next most important in the view of the respondents was achievement of behavioral changes through treatment (coefficient 1.755; standard error 0.110). The ‘drug intake’ aspect was not important in the attitude component rating and not significant in the DCE. Conclusions: The primary goal of ADHD treatment is by no means the alleviation of core symptoms. Instead, therapy should help enable patients to set and achieve their own objectives. Treatment should enable patients to organize their social participation in everyday life. Copyright Adis Data Information BV 2010

Suggested Citation

  • Axel Mühlbacher & Matthias Nübling, 2010. "Analysis of Patients’ Preferences," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 3(4), pages 285-294, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:patien:v:3:y:2010:i:4:p:285-294
    DOI: 10.2165/11584640-000000000-000009
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.2165/11584640-000000000-000009
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.2165/11584640-000000000-000009?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

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Emily Lancsar & Jordan Louviere, 2008. "Conducting Discrete Choice Experiments to Inform Healthcare Decision Making," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 26(8), pages 661-677, August.
    2. Flynn, Terry N. & Louviere, Jordan J. & Peters, Tim J. & Coast, Joanna, 2007. "Best-worst scaling: What it can do for health care research and how to do it," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 171-189, January.
    3. Harry Telser & Karolin Becker & Peter Zweifel, 2008. "Validity and Reliability of Willingness-to-Pay Estimates," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 1(4), pages 283-298, October.
    4. Harry Telser & Karolin Becker & Peter Zweifel, 2004. "Validity and Reliability of Willingness-to-Pay Estimates: Evidence from Two Overlapping Discrete-Choice Experiments," SOI - Working Papers 0412, Socioeconomic Institute - University of Zurich, revised Mar 2008.
    5. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74(2), pages 132-132.
    6. Lancsar, Emily & Louviere, Jordan & Flynn, Terry, 2007. "Several methods to investigate relative attribute impact in stated preference experiments," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 64(8), pages 1738-1753, April.
    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. Charles Cunningham & Ken Deal & Yvonne Chen, 2010. "Adaptive Choice-Based Conjoint Analysis," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 3(4), pages 257-273, December.
    4. Antonini, Marcello & Genie, Mesfin G. & Attwell, Katie & Attema, Arthur E. & Ward, Jeremy K. & Melegaro, Alessia & Torbica, Aleksandra & Kelly, Brian & Berardi, Chiara & Sequeira, Ana Rita & McGregor,, 2025. "Are we ready for the next pandemic? Public preferences and trade-offs between vaccine characteristics and societal restrictions across 21 countries," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 366(C).
    5. Poder, Thomas G. & Ameri, Hosein, 2025. "A new SF-6Dv2 value set based on a hybrid model using SG, cTTO, and DCE data," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 366(C).
    6. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Hensher, David A., 2021. "The landscape of econometric discrete choice modelling research," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    7. Chiara Seghieri & Alessandro Mengoni & Sabina Nuti, 2014. "Applying discrete choice modelling in a priority setting: an investigation of public preferences for primary care models," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 15(7), pages 773-785, September.
    8. Emily Lancsar & Peter Burge, 2014. "Choice modelling research in health economics," Chapters, in: Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly (ed.), Handbook of Choice Modelling, chapter 28, pages 675-687, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    9. Hosein Ameri & Thomas G. Poder, 2025. "Comparison of four approaches in eliciting health state utilities with SF-6Dv2," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 26(4), pages 589-604, June.
    10. Lancsar, Emily & Louviere, Jordan & Donaldson, Cam & Currie, Gillian & Burgess, Leonie, 2013. "Best worst discrete choice experiments in health: Methods and an application," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 74-82.
    11. 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.
    12. Sardaro, Ruggiero & Orsitto, Leonardo & Faccilongo, Nicola & La Sala, Piermichele, 2026. "Landowners’ attitudes toward agrivoltaic adoption: Evidence from a discrete choice experiment in Southern Italy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 214(C).
    13. Emily Lancsar & Jordan Louviere, 2008. "Conducting Discrete Choice Experiments to Inform Healthcare Decision Making," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 26(8), pages 661-677, August.
    14. Nathan N O’Hara & Lilla Roy & Lyndsay M O’Hara & Jerry M Spiegel & Larry D Lynd & J Mark FitzGerald & Annalee Yassi & Letshego E Nophale & Carlo A Marra, 2015. "Healthcare Worker Preferences for Active Tuberculosis Case Finding Programs in South Africa: A Best-Worst Scaling Choice Experiment," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(7), pages 1-13, July.
    15. Pfarr, Christian & Schmid, Andreas, 2013. "The political economics of social health insurance: the tricky case of individuals’ preferences," MPRA Paper 44534, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    16. Stephanie Knox & Rosalie Viney & Deborah Street & Marion Haas & Denzil Fiebig & Edith Weisberg & Deborah Bateson, 2012. "What’s Good and Bad About Contraceptive Products?," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 30(12), pages 1187-1202, December.
    17. Muunda, Emmanuel & Mtimet, Nadhem & Schneider, Franziska & Wanyoike, Francis & Dominguez-Salas, Paula & Alonso, Silvia, 2021. "Could the new dairy policy affect milk allocation to infants in Kenya? A best-worst scaling approach," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(C).
    18. Chung, Sol & Agnew, Julie & Bateman, Hazel & Eckert, Christine & Liu, Junhao & Thorp, Susan, 2024. "The impact of mortgage broker use on borrower confusion and preferences," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 224(C), pages 229-247.
    19. Santiago Guerrero & Laure Kuhfuss & José Ignacio Rivero‐Wildemauwe & Patricia Correa & Miguel Carriquiry & Francisco Rosas & José Velazco, 2026. "Preferences for Sustainable Production Practices in Extensive Livestock Systems in Uruguay," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 77(2), pages 283-303, June.
    20. Dimitris Damigos & Christina Kaliampakou & Anastasios Balaskas & Lefkothea Papada, 2021. "Does Energy Poverty Affect Energy Efficiency Investment Decisions? First Evidence from a Stated Choice Experiment," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(6), pages 1-17, March.

    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:3:y:2010:i:4:p:285-294. 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 .

    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.