A discrete-choice experiment to assess treatment modality preferences of patients with depression

Joran Lokkerbol, Amber Geomini, Jule van Voorthuijsen, Annemieke van Straten, Bea Tiemens, Filip Smit, Anneriek Risseeuw, Mickaël Hiligsmann

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

Abstract

Aims: There is an increasing interest in understanding patients’ preferences in the area of healthcare decision-making to better match treatment with patients’ preferences and improve treatment uptake and adherence. The aim of this study was to elicit the preferences of patients with a depressive disorder regarding treatment modalities. Materials and methods: In a discrete-choice experiment, patients chose repetitively between two hypothetical depression treatments that varied in four treatment attributes: waiting time until the start of treatment, treatment intensity, level of digitalization, and group size. A Bayesian-efficient design was used to develop 12 choice sets, and patients’ preferences and preference variation was estimated using a random parameters logit model. Results: A total of 165 patients with depression completed the survey. Patients preferred short (over long) waiting times, face-to-face (over digital) treatment, individual (over group) treatment, and one session per week over two sessions per week or one session per 2 weeks. Patients disfavoured digital treatment and treatment in a large group. Waiting time and treatment intensity were substantially less important attributes to patients than face-to-face (vs digital) and group size. Significant variation in preferences was observed for each attribute, and sub-group analyses revealed that these differences were in part related to education. Limitations: The convenience sample over-represented the female and younger population, limiting generalizability. Limited information on background characteristics limited the possibilities to explore preference heterogeneity. Conclusion: This study demonstrated how different treatment components for depression affect patients’ preferences for those treatments. There is significant variation in treatment preferences, even after accounting for education. Incorporating individual patients’ preferences into treatment decisions could potentially lead to improved adherence of treatments for depressive disorders.
LanguageEnglish
Pages178-186
Number of pages9
JournalJournal of Medical Economics
Volume22
Issue number2
Early online date2018
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Feb 2019

Cite this

Lokkerbol, J., Geomini, A., van Voorthuijsen, J., van Straten, A., Tiemens, B., Smit, F., ... Hiligsmann, M. (2019). A discrete-choice experiment to assess treatment modality preferences of patients with depression. Journal of Medical Economics, 22(2), 178-186. https://doi.org/10.1080/13696998.2018.1555404
Lokkerbol, Joran ; Geomini, Amber ; van Voorthuijsen, Jule ; van Straten, Annemieke ; Tiemens, Bea ; Smit, Filip ; Risseeuw, Anneriek ; Hiligsmann, Mickaël. / A discrete-choice experiment to assess treatment modality preferences of patients with depression. In: Journal of Medical Economics. 2019 ; Vol. 22, No. 2. pp. 178-186.
@article{bd96274017de4d2e98a19072e508cd70,
title = "A discrete-choice experiment to assess treatment modality preferences of patients with depression",
abstract = "Aims: There is an increasing interest in understanding patients’ preferences in the area of healthcare decision-making to better match treatment with patients’ preferences and improve treatment uptake and adherence. The aim of this study was to elicit the preferences of patients with a depressive disorder regarding treatment modalities. Materials and methods: In a discrete-choice experiment, patients chose repetitively between two hypothetical depression treatments that varied in four treatment attributes: waiting time until the start of treatment, treatment intensity, level of digitalization, and group size. A Bayesian-efficient design was used to develop 12 choice sets, and patients’ preferences and preference variation was estimated using a random parameters logit model. Results: A total of 165 patients with depression completed the survey. Patients preferred short (over long) waiting times, face-to-face (over digital) treatment, individual (over group) treatment, and one session per week over two sessions per week or one session per 2 weeks. Patients disfavoured digital treatment and treatment in a large group. Waiting time and treatment intensity were substantially less important attributes to patients than face-to-face (vs digital) and group size. Significant variation in preferences was observed for each attribute, and sub-group analyses revealed that these differences were in part related to education. Limitations: The convenience sample over-represented the female and younger population, limiting generalizability. Limited information on background characteristics limited the possibilities to explore preference heterogeneity. Conclusion: This study demonstrated how different treatment components for depression affect patients’ preferences for those treatments. There is significant variation in treatment preferences, even after accounting for education. Incorporating individual patients’ preferences into treatment decisions could potentially lead to improved adherence of treatments for depressive disorders.",
author = "Joran Lokkerbol and Amber Geomini and {van Voorthuijsen}, Jule and {van Straten}, Annemieke and Bea Tiemens and Filip Smit and Anneriek Risseeuw and Micka{\"e}l Hiligsmann",
year = "2019",
month = "2",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1080/13696998.2018.1555404",
language = "English",
volume = "22",
pages = "178--186",
journal = "Journal of Medical Economics",
issn = "1369-6998",
publisher = "Taylor and Francis Ltd.",
number = "2",

}

Lokkerbol, J, Geomini, A, van Voorthuijsen, J, van Straten, A, Tiemens, B, Smit, F, Risseeuw, A & Hiligsmann, M 2019, 'A discrete-choice experiment to assess treatment modality preferences of patients with depression', Journal of Medical Economics, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 178-186. https://doi.org/10.1080/13696998.2018.1555404

A discrete-choice experiment to assess treatment modality preferences of patients with depression. / Lokkerbol, Joran; Geomini, Amber; van Voorthuijsen, Jule; van Straten, Annemieke; Tiemens, Bea; Smit, Filip; Risseeuw, Anneriek; Hiligsmann, Mickaël.

In: Journal of Medical Economics, Vol. 22, No. 2, 01.02.2019, p. 178-186.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - A discrete-choice experiment to assess treatment modality preferences of patients with depression

AU - Lokkerbol, Joran

AU - Geomini, Amber

AU - van Voorthuijsen, Jule

AU - van Straten, Annemieke

AU - Tiemens, Bea

AU - Smit, Filip

AU - Risseeuw, Anneriek

AU - Hiligsmann, Mickaël

PY - 2019/2/1

Y1 - 2019/2/1

N2 - Aims: There is an increasing interest in understanding patients’ preferences in the area of healthcare decision-making to better match treatment with patients’ preferences and improve treatment uptake and adherence. The aim of this study was to elicit the preferences of patients with a depressive disorder regarding treatment modalities. Materials and methods: In a discrete-choice experiment, patients chose repetitively between two hypothetical depression treatments that varied in four treatment attributes: waiting time until the start of treatment, treatment intensity, level of digitalization, and group size. A Bayesian-efficient design was used to develop 12 choice sets, and patients’ preferences and preference variation was estimated using a random parameters logit model. Results: A total of 165 patients with depression completed the survey. Patients preferred short (over long) waiting times, face-to-face (over digital) treatment, individual (over group) treatment, and one session per week over two sessions per week or one session per 2 weeks. Patients disfavoured digital treatment and treatment in a large group. Waiting time and treatment intensity were substantially less important attributes to patients than face-to-face (vs digital) and group size. Significant variation in preferences was observed for each attribute, and sub-group analyses revealed that these differences were in part related to education. Limitations: The convenience sample over-represented the female and younger population, limiting generalizability. Limited information on background characteristics limited the possibilities to explore preference heterogeneity. Conclusion: This study demonstrated how different treatment components for depression affect patients’ preferences for those treatments. There is significant variation in treatment preferences, even after accounting for education. Incorporating individual patients’ preferences into treatment decisions could potentially lead to improved adherence of treatments for depressive disorders.

AB - Aims: There is an increasing interest in understanding patients’ preferences in the area of healthcare decision-making to better match treatment with patients’ preferences and improve treatment uptake and adherence. The aim of this study was to elicit the preferences of patients with a depressive disorder regarding treatment modalities. Materials and methods: In a discrete-choice experiment, patients chose repetitively between two hypothetical depression treatments that varied in four treatment attributes: waiting time until the start of treatment, treatment intensity, level of digitalization, and group size. A Bayesian-efficient design was used to develop 12 choice sets, and patients’ preferences and preference variation was estimated using a random parameters logit model. Results: A total of 165 patients with depression completed the survey. Patients preferred short (over long) waiting times, face-to-face (over digital) treatment, individual (over group) treatment, and one session per week over two sessions per week or one session per 2 weeks. Patients disfavoured digital treatment and treatment in a large group. Waiting time and treatment intensity were substantially less important attributes to patients than face-to-face (vs digital) and group size. Significant variation in preferences was observed for each attribute, and sub-group analyses revealed that these differences were in part related to education. Limitations: The convenience sample over-represented the female and younger population, limiting generalizability. Limited information on background characteristics limited the possibilities to explore preference heterogeneity. Conclusion: This study demonstrated how different treatment components for depression affect patients’ preferences for those treatments. There is significant variation in treatment preferences, even after accounting for education. Incorporating individual patients’ preferences into treatment decisions could potentially lead to improved adherence of treatments for depressive disorders.

UR - https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85058984898&origin=inward

UR - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30501437

U2 - 10.1080/13696998.2018.1555404

DO - 10.1080/13696998.2018.1555404

M3 - Article

VL - 22

SP - 178

EP - 186

JO - Journal of Medical Economics

T2 - Journal of Medical Economics

JF - Journal of Medical Economics

SN - 1369-6998

IS - 2

ER -