Skip to main content
Erschienen in: The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research 2/2016

01.04.2016 | Original Research Article

Patient-Important Outcomes in the Long-Term Treatment of Bipolar Disorder: A Mixed-Methods Approach Investigating Relative Preferences and a Proposed Taxonomy

verfasst von: Øystein Eiring, Magne Nylenna, Kari Nytrøen

Erschienen in: The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research | Ausgabe 2/2016

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Background

In patient-centered healthcare, the assessment and selection of treatment should be based on outcomes important to patients and the relative importance patients place on these outcomes. The evidence base on long-term treatment outcomes important to patients with bipolar disorder is inconclusive.

Objective

The aim of this study was to investigate the relative importance of patient-important outcomes in bipolar disorder, and to construct a holistic and logically sound shortlist of treatment outcomes relevant in the evaluation and selection of pharmacological treatment in bipolar disorder.

Method

Overall, 22 outpatients from southern and eastern Norway participated in four focus groups, and suggested outcomes important in treatment decisions. Quantitative, relative importance weights for treatment outcomes identified in literature reviews were elicited from each participant, employing a self-explicated approach (SEA). The method combined a ranking- and rating-stated preference exercise and resulted in a 0–100 SEA-score for each outcome.

Results

Outcomes from the literature accommodated the outcomes suggested in the focus groups. Mean age in the sample was 42 years and 64 % were women. All patients completed the exercises with consistent results. The most important outcomes were severe depression (median SEA 95 [interquartile range 26]), severe mania (76 [40]), quality of life (65 [53]), work/school functioning (58 [48]), and social functioning (54 [50]). Avoiding severe mania was significantly more important to patients with bipolar disorder type I compared with patients with type II. Outcome scores correlated strongly (p < 0.01) across the ranking and rating exercises. Based on the results, a simplified and consistent set of outcomes was constructed.

Conclusions

Patients’ preferences for outcomes in the long-term treatment of bipolar disorder vary considerably. To advance patient-centered healthcare, we propose that researchers, clinical guideline producers, and patient–clinician dyads integrate a taxonomy of patient-important outcomes, such as constructed in this study, when assessing treatment options.
Anhänge
Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich
Literatur
1.
Zurück zum Zitat Merikangas KR, Jin R, He JP, Kessler RC, Lee S, Sampson NA, et al. Prevalence and correlates of bipolar spectrum disorder in the world mental health survey initiative. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2011;68(3):241–51.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Merikangas KR, Jin R, He JP, Kessler RC, Lee S, Sampson NA, et al. Prevalence and correlates of bipolar spectrum disorder in the world mental health survey initiative. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2011;68(3):241–51.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
2.
Zurück zum Zitat Deutsche Gesellschaft für Bipolare Störungen (DGBS) DGfrP, Psychotherapie und Nervenheilkunde DGPPN. DGBS e.V. und DGPPN e.V.: S3-Leitlinie zur Diagnostik und Therapie Bipolarer Störungen. Langversion, 2012. Deutsche Gesellschaft für Bipolare Störungen (DGBS) DGfrP, Psychotherapie und Nervenheilkunde DGPPN. DGBS e.V. und DGPPN e.V.: S3-Leitlinie zur Diagnostik und Therapie Bipolarer Störungen. Langversion, 2012.
4.
Zurück zum Zitat Yatham LN, Kennedy SH, Parikh SV, Schaffer A, Beaulieu S, Alda M, et al. Canadian Network for Mood and Anxiety Treatments (CANMAT) and International Society for Bipolar Disorders (ISBD) collaborative update of CANMAT guidelines for the management of patients with bipolar disorder: update 2013. Bipolar Disord. 2013;15:1–44.CrossRefPubMed Yatham LN, Kennedy SH, Parikh SV, Schaffer A, Beaulieu S, Alda M, et al. Canadian Network for Mood and Anxiety Treatments (CANMAT) and International Society for Bipolar Disorders (ISBD) collaborative update of CANMAT guidelines for the management of patients with bipolar disorder: update 2013. Bipolar Disord. 2013;15:1–44.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Zurück zum Zitat Dolan JG. Multi-criteria clinical decision support: a primer on the use of multiple criteria decision making methods to promote evidence-based, patient-centered healthcare. Patient. 2010;3(4):229–48.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Dolan JG. Multi-criteria clinical decision support: a primer on the use of multiple criteria decision making methods to promote evidence-based, patient-centered healthcare. Patient. 2010;3(4):229–48.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
9.
Zurück zum Zitat Miura T, Noma H, Furakawa TA, et al. Comparative efficacy and tolerability of pharmacological treatments in the maintenance treatment of bipolar disorder: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Lancet Psychiatry. 2014;1:351–9.CrossRefPubMed Miura T, Noma H, Furakawa TA, et al. Comparative efficacy and tolerability of pharmacological treatments in the maintenance treatment of bipolar disorder: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Lancet Psychiatry. 2014;1:351–9.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Zurück zum Zitat Fleurence R, Whicher D, Dunham K, Gerson J, Newhouse R, Luce B. The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute’s role in advancing methods for patient-centered outcomes research. Med Care. 2015;53(1):2–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Fleurence R, Whicher D, Dunham K, Gerson J, Newhouse R, Luce B. The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute’s role in advancing methods for patient-centered outcomes research. Med Care. 2015;53(1):2–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
11.
Zurück zum Zitat Sacristan JA. Patient-centered medicine and patient-oriented research: improving health outcomes for individual patients. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2013;13:6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Sacristan JA. Patient-centered medicine and patient-oriented research: improving health outcomes for individual patients. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2013;13:6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
12.
Zurück zum Zitat Elwyn G, Laitner S, Coulter A, Walker E, Watson P, Thomson R. Implementing shared decision making in the NHS. BMJ. 2010;341:c5146.CrossRefPubMed Elwyn G, Laitner S, Coulter A, Walker E, Watson P, Thomson R. Implementing shared decision making in the NHS. BMJ. 2010;341:c5146.CrossRefPubMed
13.
Zurück zum Zitat Breckenridge A. Patient opinions and preferences in drug development and regulatory decision making. Drug Discov Today Technol. 2011;8(1):e1–42.CrossRef Breckenridge A. Patient opinions and preferences in drug development and regulatory decision making. Drug Discov Today Technol. 2011;8(1):e1–42.CrossRef
14.
Zurück zum Zitat van der Weijden T, Legare F, Boivin A, Burgers JS, van Veenendaal H, Stiggelbout AM, et al. How to integrate individual patient values and preferences in clinical practice guidelines? A research protocol. Implement Sci. 2010;5:10.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral van der Weijden T, Legare F, Boivin A, Burgers JS, van Veenendaal H, Stiggelbout AM, et al. How to integrate individual patient values and preferences in clinical practice guidelines? A research protocol. Implement Sci. 2010;5:10.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
15.
Zurück zum Zitat Ryan M, Scott DA, Reeves C, Bate A, van Teijlingen ER, Russell EM, et al. Eliciting public preferences for healthcare: a systematic review of techniques. Health Technol Assess. 2001;5(5):1–186.CrossRefPubMed Ryan M, Scott DA, Reeves C, Bate A, van Teijlingen ER, Russell EM, et al. Eliciting public preferences for healthcare: a systematic review of techniques. Health Technol Assess. 2001;5(5):1–186.CrossRefPubMed
16.
Zurück zum Zitat Bridges JF. Stated preference methods in health care evaluation: an emerging methodological paradigm in health economics. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2003;2(4):213–24.PubMed Bridges JF. Stated preference methods in health care evaluation: an emerging methodological paradigm in health economics. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2003;2(4):213–24.PubMed
17.
Zurück zum Zitat Ryan M, Kinghorn P, Entwistle VA, Francis JJ. Valuing patients’ experiences of healthcare processes: towards broader applications of existing methods. Soc Sci Med. 2014;106:194–203.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Ryan M, Kinghorn P, Entwistle VA, Francis JJ. Valuing patients’ experiences of healthcare processes: towards broader applications of existing methods. Soc Sci Med. 2014;106:194–203.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
18.
Zurück zum Zitat Eiring Ø, Landmark BF, Aas E, Salkeld G, Nylenna M, Nytrøen K. What matters to patients? A systematic review of preferences for medication-associated outcomes in mental disorders. BMJ Open. 2015;5(4):e007848.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Eiring Ø, Landmark BF, Aas E, Salkeld G, Nylenna M, Nytrøen K. What matters to patients? A systematic review of preferences for medication-associated outcomes in mental disorders. BMJ Open. 2015;5(4):e007848.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
19.
Zurück zum Zitat Chrzan K, Golovashkina N. An empirical test of six stated importance measures. Int J Market Res. 2006;48(6):717–40. Chrzan K, Golovashkina N. An empirical test of six stated importance measures. Int J Market Res. 2006;48(6):717–40.
20.
Zurück zum Zitat Schlereth C, Eckert C, Schaaf R, Skiera B. Measurement of preferences with self-explicated approaches: a classification and merge of trade-off- and non-trade-off-based evaluation types. Eur J Oper Res. 2014;238(1):185–98.CrossRef Schlereth C, Eckert C, Schaaf R, Skiera B. Measurement of preferences with self-explicated approaches: a classification and merge of trade-off- and non-trade-off-based evaluation types. Eur J Oper Res. 2014;238(1):185–98.CrossRef
21.
Zurück zum Zitat Scholz SW, Meissner M, Decker R. Measuring consumer preferences for complex products: a compositional approach based on paired comparisons. J Mark Res. 2010;47(4):685–98.CrossRef Scholz SW, Meissner M, Decker R. Measuring consumer preferences for complex products: a compositional approach based on paired comparisons. J Mark Res. 2010;47(4):685–98.CrossRef
22.
Zurück zum Zitat Bridges JF, Slawik L, Schmeding A, Reimer J, Naber D, Kuhnigk O. A test of concordance between patient and psychiatrist valuations of multiple treatment goals for schizophrenia. Health Expect. 2013;16(2):164–76.CrossRefPubMed Bridges JF, Slawik L, Schmeding A, Reimer J, Naber D, Kuhnigk O. A test of concordance between patient and psychiatrist valuations of multiple treatment goals for schizophrenia. Health Expect. 2013;16(2):164–76.CrossRefPubMed
23.
Zurück zum Zitat Fraenkel L, Chodkowski D, Lim J, Garcia-Tsao G. Patients’ preferences for treatment of hepatitis C. Med Decis Mak. 2010;30(1):45–57.CrossRef Fraenkel L, Chodkowski D, Lim J, Garcia-Tsao G. Patients’ preferences for treatment of hepatitis C. Med Decis Mak. 2010;30(1):45–57.CrossRef
24.
Zurück zum Zitat Pavlova M, Groot W, van Merode G. The importance of quality, access and price to health care consumers in Bulgaria: a self-explicated approach. Int J Health Plan Manag. 2003;18(4):343–61.CrossRef Pavlova M, Groot W, van Merode G. The importance of quality, access and price to health care consumers in Bulgaria: a self-explicated approach. Int J Health Plan Manag. 2003;18(4):343–61.CrossRef
25.
Zurück zum Zitat Lenert L, Kaplan RM. Validity and interpretation of preference-based measures of health-related quality of life. Med Care. 2000;38(9 Suppl):II138–50.PubMed Lenert L, Kaplan RM. Validity and interpretation of preference-based measures of health-related quality of life. Med Care. 2000;38(9 Suppl):II138–50.PubMed
31.
Zurück zum Zitat Masadeh MA. Focus group: review and practices. Int J Appl Sci Technol. 2012;2(10):63–8. Masadeh MA. Focus group: review and practices. Int J Appl Sci Technol. 2012;2(10):63–8.
32.
Zurück zum Zitat Opmeer BC, de Borgie CA, Mol BW, Bossuyt PM. Assessing preferences regarding healthcare interventions that involve non-health outcomes: an overview of clinical studies. Patient. 2010;3(1):1–10.CrossRefPubMed Opmeer BC, de Borgie CA, Mol BW, Bossuyt PM. Assessing preferences regarding healthcare interventions that involve non-health outcomes: an overview of clinical studies. Patient. 2010;3(1):1–10.CrossRefPubMed
33.
Zurück zum Zitat Johnson FR, Ozdemir S, Manjunath R, Hauber AB, Burch SP, Thompson TR. Factors that affect adherence to bipolar disorder treatments: a stated-preference approach. Med Care. 2007;45(6):545–52.CrossRefPubMed Johnson FR, Ozdemir S, Manjunath R, Hauber AB, Burch SP, Thompson TR. Factors that affect adherence to bipolar disorder treatments: a stated-preference approach. Med Care. 2007;45(6):545–52.CrossRefPubMed
34.
Zurück zum Zitat Revicki DA, Hanlon J, Martin S, Gyulai L, Nassir Ghaemi S, Lynch F, et al. Patient-based utilities for bipolar disorder-related health states. J Affect Disord. 2005;87(2–3):203–10.CrossRefPubMed Revicki DA, Hanlon J, Martin S, Gyulai L, Nassir Ghaemi S, Lynch F, et al. Patient-based utilities for bipolar disorder-related health states. J Affect Disord. 2005;87(2–3):203–10.CrossRefPubMed
35.
Zurück zum Zitat American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders. 5th ed. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association; 2013. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders. 5th ed. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association; 2013.
36.
Zurück zum Zitat Vieta A, Badia X, Alvarez E, Sacristan JA. Which nontraditional outcomes should be measured in healthcare decision-making in schizophrenia? A systematic review. Perspect Psychiatr Care. 2012;48(4):198–207.CrossRefPubMed Vieta A, Badia X, Alvarez E, Sacristan JA. Which nontraditional outcomes should be measured in healthcare decision-making in schizophrenia? A systematic review. Perspect Psychiatr Care. 2012;48(4):198–207.CrossRefPubMed
37.
Zurück zum Zitat Sattler H, Hensel-Börner S. A comparison of conjoint measurement with self-explicated approaches. In: Gustafsson A, Herrmann A, Huber F, editors. conjoint measurement. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer; 2007. p. 67–76.CrossRef Sattler H, Hensel-Börner S. A comparison of conjoint measurement with self-explicated approaches. In: Gustafsson A, Herrmann A, Huber F, editors. conjoint measurement. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer; 2007. p. 67–76.CrossRef
38.
Zurück zum Zitat Von Nitzsch R, Weber M. The effect of attribute ranges on weights in multiattribute utility measurements. Manag Sci. 1993;39(8):937–43.CrossRef Von Nitzsch R, Weber M. The effect of attribute ranges on weights in multiattribute utility measurements. Manag Sci. 1993;39(8):937–43.CrossRef
39.
Zurück zum Zitat Paykel ES, Abbott R, Morriss R, Hayhurst H, Scott J. Sub-syndromal and syndromal symptoms in the longitudinal course of bipolar disorder. Br J Psychiatry. 2006;189:118–23.CrossRefPubMed Paykel ES, Abbott R, Morriss R, Hayhurst H, Scott J. Sub-syndromal and syndromal symptoms in the longitudinal course of bipolar disorder. Br J Psychiatry. 2006;189:118–23.CrossRefPubMed
41.
Zurück zum Zitat Dell’Osso L, Pini S, Cassano GB, Mastrocinque C, Seckinger RA, Saettoni M, et al. Insight into illness in patients with mania, mixed mania, bipolar depression and major depression with psychotic features. Bipolar Disord. 2002;4(5):315–22.CrossRefPubMed Dell’Osso L, Pini S, Cassano GB, Mastrocinque C, Seckinger RA, Saettoni M, et al. Insight into illness in patients with mania, mixed mania, bipolar depression and major depression with psychotic features. Bipolar Disord. 2002;4(5):315–22.CrossRefPubMed
42.
Zurück zum Zitat Bridges JF, Onukwugha E, Johnson FR, Hauber AB. Patient preference methods: a patient-centered evaluation paradigm. ISPOR Connect. 2007;13(6):4–7. Bridges JF, Onukwugha E, Johnson FR, Hauber AB. Patient preference methods: a patient-centered evaluation paradigm. ISPOR Connect. 2007;13(6):4–7.
43.
44.
Zurück zum Zitat Basu A, Meltzer D. Value of information on preference heterogeneity and individualized care. Med Decis Mak. 2007;27(2):112–27.CrossRef Basu A, Meltzer D. Value of information on preference heterogeneity and individualized care. Med Decis Mak. 2007;27(2):112–27.CrossRef
45.
Zurück zum Zitat van Gestel A, Grutters J, Schouten J, Webers C, Beckers H, Joore M, et al. The role of the expected value of individualized care in cost-effectiveness analyses and decision making. Value Health. 2012;15(1):13–21.CrossRefPubMed van Gestel A, Grutters J, Schouten J, Webers C, Beckers H, Joore M, et al. The role of the expected value of individualized care in cost-effectiveness analyses and decision making. Value Health. 2012;15(1):13–21.CrossRefPubMed
Metadaten
Titel
Patient-Important Outcomes in the Long-Term Treatment of Bipolar Disorder: A Mixed-Methods Approach Investigating Relative Preferences and a Proposed Taxonomy
verfasst von
Øystein Eiring
Magne Nylenna
Kari Nytrøen
Publikationsdatum
01.04.2016
Verlag
Springer International Publishing
Erschienen in
The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research / Ausgabe 2/2016
Print ISSN: 1178-1653
Elektronische ISSN: 1178-1661
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-015-0128-x

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 2/2016

The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research 2/2016 Zur Ausgabe