Skip to main content
Erschienen in: The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research 1/2016

01.02.2016 | Original Research Article

Focus Groups in Elderly Ophthalmologic Patients: Setting the Stage for Quantitative Preference Elicitation

verfasst von: Marion Danner, Vera Vennedey, Mickaël Hiligsmann, Sascha Fauser, Stephanie Stock

Erschienen in: The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research | Ausgabe 1/2016

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Objectives

Patients suffering from age-related macular degeneration (AMD) are rarely actively involved in decision-making, despite facing preference-sensitive treatment decisions. This paper presents a qualitative study to prepare quantitative preference elicitation in AMD patients. The aims of this study were (1) to gain familiarity with and learn about the special requirements of the AMD patient population for quantitative data collection; and (2) to select/refine patient-relevant treatment attributes and levels, and gain insights into preference structures.

Methods

Semi-structured focus group interviews were performed. An interview guide including preselected categories in the form of seven potentially patient-relevant treatment attributes was followed. To identify the most patient-relevant treatment attributes, a ranking exercise was performed. Deductive content analyses were done by two independent reviewers for each attribute to derive subcategories (potential levels of attributes) and depict preference trends.

Results

The focus group interviews included 21 patients. The interviews revealed that quantitative preference surveys in this population will have to be interviewer assisted to make the survey feasible for patients. The five most patient-relevant attributes were the effect on visual function [ranking score (RS): 139], injection frequency (RS: 101), approval status (RS: 83), side effects (RS: 79), and monitoring frequency (RS: 76). Attribute and level refinement was based on patients’ statements. Preference trends and dependencies between attributes informed the quantitative instrument design.

Conclusion

This study suggests that qualitative research is a very helpful step to prepare the design and administration of quantitative preference elicitation instruments. It especially facilitated familiarization with the target population and its preferences, and it supported attribute/level refinement.
Anhänge
Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich
Literatur
1.
Zurück zum Zitat Wong WL, Su X, Li X, Cheung CM, Klein R, Cheng CY, et al. Global prevalence of age-related macular degeneration and disease burden projection for 2020 and 2040: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Glob Health. 2014;2(2):e106–16. doi:10.1016/S2214-109X(13)70145-1.PubMedCrossRef Wong WL, Su X, Li X, Cheung CM, Klein R, Cheng CY, et al. Global prevalence of age-related macular degeneration and disease burden projection for 2020 and 2040: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Glob Health. 2014;2(2):e106–16. doi:10.​1016/​S2214-109X(13)70145-1.PubMedCrossRef
4.
Zurück zum Zitat Wenzel M, Auffarth G, Scharrer A, Schayan K, Reinhard T. Ambulante und stationäre Intraokularchirurgie 2013: Ergebnisse der Umfrage von BDOC, BVA, DGII und DOG. Ophthalmo-Chirurgie. 2014;26:171–82. Wenzel M, Auffarth G, Scharrer A, Schayan K, Reinhard T. Ambulante und stationäre Intraokularchirurgie 2013: Ergebnisse der Umfrage von BDOC, BVA, DGII und DOG. Ophthalmo-Chirurgie. 2014;26:171–82.
7.
Zurück zum Zitat Muether PS, Hermann MM, Koch K, Fauser S. Delay between medical indication to anti-VEGF treatment in age-related macular degeneration can result in a loss of visual acuity. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2011;249(5):633–7. doi:10.1007/s00417-010-1520-9.PubMedCrossRef Muether PS, Hermann MM, Koch K, Fauser S. Delay between medical indication to anti-VEGF treatment in age-related macular degeneration can result in a loss of visual acuity. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2011;249(5):633–7. doi:10.​1007/​s00417-010-1520-9.PubMedCrossRef
8.
Zurück zum Zitat Droege KM, Muether PS, Hermann MM, Caramoy A, Viebahn U, Kirchhof B, et al. Adherence to ranibizumab treatment for neovascular age-related macular degeneration in real life. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2012;251(5):1281–4.PubMedCrossRef Droege KM, Muether PS, Hermann MM, Caramoy A, Viebahn U, Kirchhof B, et al. Adherence to ranibizumab treatment for neovascular age-related macular degeneration in real life. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2012;251(5):1281–4.PubMedCrossRef
9.
Zurück zum Zitat Droege KM, Caramoy A, Kersten A, Luberichs-Fauser J, Zilkens K, Müller D, et al. Patient preference of ranibizumab treatment regimen for neovascular age-related macular degeneration—monthly injections versus pro re nata. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2014;252(1):31–4.PubMedCrossRef Droege KM, Caramoy A, Kersten A, Luberichs-Fauser J, Zilkens K, Müller D, et al. Patient preference of ranibizumab treatment regimen for neovascular age-related macular degeneration—monthly injections versus pro re nata. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2014;252(1):31–4.PubMedCrossRef
10.
Zurück zum Zitat Bridges JF, Hauber AB, Marshall D, Lloyd A, Prosser LA, Regier DA, et al. Conjoint analysis applications in health—a checklist: a report of the ISPOR Good Research Practices for Conjoint Analysis Task Force. Value Health. 2011;14(4):403–13. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2010.11.013.PubMedCrossRef Bridges JF, Hauber AB, Marshall D, Lloyd A, Prosser LA, Regier DA, et al. Conjoint analysis applications in health—a checklist: a report of the ISPOR Good Research Practices for Conjoint Analysis Task Force. Value Health. 2011;14(4):403–13. doi:10.​1016/​j.​jval.​2010.​11.​013.PubMedCrossRef
11.
Zurück zum Zitat Johnson RF, Lancsar E, Marshall D, Kilambi V, Muhlbacher A, Regier DA, et al. Constructing experimental designs for discrete-choice experiments: report of the ISPOR Conjoint Analysis Experimental Design Good Research Practices Task Force. Value Health. 2013;16(1):3–13. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2012.08.2223.CrossRef Johnson RF, Lancsar E, Marshall D, Kilambi V, Muhlbacher A, Regier DA, et al. Constructing experimental designs for discrete-choice experiments: report of the ISPOR Conjoint Analysis Experimental Design Good Research Practices Task Force. Value Health. 2013;16(1):3–13. doi:10.​1016/​j.​jval.​2012.​08.​2223.CrossRef
12.
Zurück zum Zitat Liberatore MJ, Nydick RL. The analytic hierarchy process in medical and health care decision making: a literature review. Eur J Oper Res. 2008;189(1):194–207.CrossRef Liberatore MJ, Nydick RL. The analytic hierarchy process in medical and health care decision making: a literature review. Eur J Oper Res. 2008;189(1):194–207.CrossRef
15.
Zurück zum Zitat Danner M, Hummel JM, Volz F, van Manen JG, Wiegard B, Dintsios CM, et al. Integrating patients’ views into health technology assessment: analytic hierarchy process (AHP) as a method to elicit patient preferences. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2011;27(4):369–75. doi:10.1017/S0266462311000523.PubMedCrossRef Danner M, Hummel JM, Volz F, van Manen JG, Wiegard B, Dintsios CM, et al. Integrating patients’ views into health technology assessment: analytic hierarchy process (AHP) as a method to elicit patient preferences. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2011;27(4):369–75. doi:10.​1017/​S026646231100052​3.PubMedCrossRef
17.
Zurück zum Zitat Coast J, Horrocks S. Developing attributes and levels for discrete choice experiments using qualitative methods. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2007;12(1):25–30.PubMedCrossRef Coast J, Horrocks S. Developing attributes and levels for discrete choice experiments using qualitative methods. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2007;12(1):25–30.PubMedCrossRef
18.
Zurück zum Zitat Kløjgaard ME, Bech M, Søgaard R. Designing a stated choice experiment: the value of a qualitative process. J Choice Model. 2012;5(2):1–18.CrossRef Kløjgaard ME, Bech M, Søgaard R. Designing a stated choice experiment: the value of a qualitative process. J Choice Model. 2012;5(2):1–18.CrossRef
20.
Zurück zum Zitat Kinter ET, Schmeding A, Rudolph I, dosReis S, Bridges JF. Identifying patient-relevant endpoints among individuals with schizophrenia: an application of patient-centered health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009;25(1):35–41. doi:10.1017/S0266462309090059.PubMedCrossRef Kinter ET, Schmeding A, Rudolph I, dosReis S, Bridges JF. Identifying patient-relevant endpoints among individuals with schizophrenia: an application of patient-centered health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009;25(1):35–41. doi:10.​1017/​S026646230909005​9.PubMedCrossRef
22.
Zurück zum Zitat Hiligsmann M, van Durme C, Geusens P, Dellaert BG, Dirksen CD, van der Weijden T, et al. Nominal group technique to select attributes for discrete choice experiments: an example for drug treatment choice in osteoporosis. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2012;7:133–9. Hiligsmann M, van Durme C, Geusens P, Dellaert BG, Dirksen CD, van der Weijden T, et al. Nominal group technique to select attributes for discrete choice experiments: an example for drug treatment choice in osteoporosis. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2012;7:133–9.
23.
Zurück zum Zitat Retinologische Gesellschaft, Deutsche Ophthalmologische Gesellschaft, Berufsverband der Augenärzte Deutschlands e.V. Die Anti-VEGF-Therapie bei der neovaskulären altersabhängigen Makuladegeneration: Therapeutische Strategien. Ophthalmologe. 2012;109:405–14. Retinologische Gesellschaft, Deutsche Ophthalmologische Gesellschaft, Berufsverband der Augenärzte Deutschlands e.V. Die Anti-VEGF-Therapie bei der neovaskulären altersabhängigen Makuladegeneration: Therapeutische Strategien. Ophthalmologe. 2012;109:405–14.
24.
Zurück zum Zitat Schmucker C, Ehlken C, Agostini HT, Antes G, Ruecker G, Lelgemann M, et al. A safety review and meta-analyses of bevacizumab and ranibizumab: off-label versus gold standard. PloS One. 2012;7(8):e42701.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Schmucker C, Ehlken C, Agostini HT, Antes G, Ruecker G, Lelgemann M, et al. A safety review and meta-analyses of bevacizumab and ranibizumab: off-label versus gold standard. PloS One. 2012;7(8):e42701.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
27.
Zurück zum Zitat Coast J, Al-Janabi H, Sutton EJ, Horrocks SA, Vosper AJ, Swancutt DR, et al. Using qualitative methods for attribute development for discrete choice experiments: issues and recommendations. Health Econ. 2012;21(6):730–41.PubMedCrossRef Coast J, Al-Janabi H, Sutton EJ, Horrocks SA, Vosper AJ, Swancutt DR, et al. Using qualitative methods for attribute development for discrete choice experiments: issues and recommendations. Health Econ. 2012;21(6):730–41.PubMedCrossRef
28.
Zurück zum Zitat Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research (COREQ): a 32 item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care. 2007;19(6):349–57.PubMedCrossRef Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research (COREQ): a 32 item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care. 2007;19(6):349–57.PubMedCrossRef
30.
Zurück zum Zitat Krueger RA, Casey MA. Focus groups: a practical guide for applied research. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications; 2009. Krueger RA, Casey MA. Focus groups: a practical guide for applied research. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications; 2009.
31.
Zurück zum Zitat Schulz M, Mach B, Renn O. Fokusgruppen in der empirischen Sozialwissenschaft—von der Konzeption bis zur Auswertung. Wiesbaden: Springer; 2012.CrossRef Schulz M, Mach B, Renn O. Fokusgruppen in der empirischen Sozialwissenschaft—von der Konzeption bis zur Auswertung. Wiesbaden: Springer; 2012.CrossRef
34.
Zurück zum Zitat Hiligsmann M, Dellaert BG, Dirksen CD, van der Weijden T, Goemaere S, Reginster J-Y, et al. Patients’ preferences for osteoporosis drug treatment: a discrete-choice experiment. Arthritis Res Ther. 2014;16:R36.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Hiligsmann M, Dellaert BG, Dirksen CD, van der Weijden T, Goemaere S, Reginster J-Y, et al. Patients’ preferences for osteoporosis drug treatment: a discrete-choice experiment. Arthritis Res Ther. 2014;16:R36.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
35.
Zurück zum Zitat Orme BK. Getting started with conjoint analysis. Madison: Research Publishers LLC; 2006. Orme BK. Getting started with conjoint analysis. Madison: Research Publishers LLC; 2006.
36.
Zurück zum Zitat Mühlbacher A, Bethge S, Tockhorn A. Präferenzmessung im Gesundheitswesen: Grundlagen von Discrete-Choice-Experimenten. Gesundheitsökonomie & Qualitätsmanagement. 2013;18(04):159–72.CrossRef Mühlbacher A, Bethge S, Tockhorn A. Präferenzmessung im Gesundheitswesen: Grundlagen von Discrete-Choice-Experimenten. Gesundheitsökonomie & Qualitätsmanagement. 2013;18(04):159–72.CrossRef
37.
Zurück zum Zitat Barrett J, Kirk S. Running focus groups with elderly and disabled elderly participants. Appl Ergon. 2000;31(6):621–9.PubMedCrossRef Barrett J, Kirk S. Running focus groups with elderly and disabled elderly participants. Appl Ergon. 2000;31(6):621–9.PubMedCrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
Focus Groups in Elderly Ophthalmologic Patients: Setting the Stage for Quantitative Preference Elicitation
verfasst von
Marion Danner
Vera Vennedey
Mickaël Hiligsmann
Sascha Fauser
Stephanie Stock
Publikationsdatum
01.02.2016
Verlag
Springer International Publishing
Erschienen in
The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research / Ausgabe 1/2016
Print ISSN: 1178-1653
Elektronische ISSN: 1178-1661
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-015-0122-3

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2016

The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research 1/2016 Zur Ausgabe