How to weight patient-relevant treatment goals for assessing treatment benefit in psoriasis: preference elicitation methods vs. rating scales
- 23 June 2018
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Springer Science and Business Media LLC in Archiv für dermatologische Forschung
- Vol. 310 (7), 567-577
- https://doi.org/10.1007/s00403-018-1846-4
Abstract
In psoriasis, several patient-relevant treatment goals must be met to be able to consider a treatment beneficial. To assess treatment benefit, the validated questionnaire Patient Benefit Index (PBI) can be used. Its global score summarizes the degree of patient-relevant treatment goals achieved after treatment, weighted by their individual importance on rating scales. These treatment goals have empirically been assigned to five dimensions. While the weighting procedure of the PBI provides information about the importance patients attach to treatment goals on a rating scale from 0 to 4, methods of preference elicitation provide information on how patients would trade off certain treatment goals against each other. However, since the treatment goals defined in the PBI often overlap conceptually, the dimensions of the PBI might be more suitable for exploration in preference elicitation methods. We used an analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and a discrete choice experiment (DCE) to generate preference-based importance weights for the PBI dimensions, and compared these weights to those derived from the rating scales. We were further interested in the effect of importance weights on the calculation of the PBI score. A total of 120 patients with psoriasis completed a questionnaire at baseline, including AHP, DCE and the rating scales, and at follow-up, regarding the attainment of treatment goals, to calculate the PBI score. In contrast to the results derived from the average rating scores, use of AHP and DCE resulted in both similar importance weights and rankings of dimensions. Presumably, patients rated treatment goals differently than the respective dimension they belong to. However, the differently calculated importance weights led to similar values of the PBI score. Our findings nevertheless provide clear evidence that, regardless of the method used, the importance of treatment goals differs between psoriasis patients, and this should be reflected in treatment decisions.Keywords
This publication has 25 references indexed in Scilit:
- Patient preferences for HIV/AIDS therapy - a discrete choice experimentHealth Economics Review, 2013
- A Comparison of Analytic Hierarchy Process and Conjoint Analysis Methods in Assessing Treatment Alternatives for Stroke RehabilitationThe Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, 2012
- Estimating importance weights for the IWQOL-Lite using conjoint analysisQuality of Life Research, 2010
- Comparison of Two Multi-Criteria Decision Techniques for Eliciting Treatment Preferences in People with Neurological DisordersThe Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, 2008
- The Use of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis Weight Elicitation Techniques in Patients with Mild Cognitive ImpairmentThe Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, 2008
- A comparative empirical study on common methods for measuring preferencesInternational Journal of Management and Decision Making, 2008
- Are Chemotherapy Patients’ HRQoL Importance Weights Consistent with Linear Scoring Rules? A Stated-choice ApproachQuality of Life Research, 2006
- Stated Preferences of Patients with Cancer for Health-related Quality-of-life (HRQOL) Domains During TreatmentQuality of Life Research, 2006
- Solving multiattribute design problems with analytic hierarchy process and conjoint analysis: An empirical comparisonEuropean Journal of Operational Research, 2005
- The Analytic Hierarchy Process in Medical Decision MakingMedical Decision Making, 1989