Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34321870›Full record

ArticlePatient preference and adherence2021

Understanding Treatment Preferences of Australian Patients Living with Treatment-Resistant Depression.

Simon Fifer, Andrea Puig, Vanessa Sequeira, Mustafa Acar, Chee H Ng, Michelle Blanchard, Ariana Cabrera, James Freemantle, Jennifer Grunfeld

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Patient preference and adherence, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 21% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Simon FiferResearch and Innovation, Community and Patient Preference Research, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-5221-0067
Andrea PuigReal World Evidence, Janssen Australia, Macquarie Park, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-7730-6310
Vanessa SequeiraMedical Affairs, Janssen Australia, Macquarie Park, New South Wales, Australia.
Mustafa AcarReal World Evidence, Janssen Australia, Macquarie Park, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-9173-9956
Chee H NgProfessorial Unit, The Melbourne Clinic, Department of Psychiatry, University of Melbourne, Richmond, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-3811-2732
Michelle BlanchardMelbourne School of Psychological Sciences, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-2426-1905
Ariana CabreraData Analytics and Visualisation, Community and Patient Preference Research, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
James FreemantlePeople Measures, South Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-8328-1180
Jennifer GrunfeldPeninsula Therapeutic & Research Group, Frankston, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-8158-4236
The University of Melbourne · AUPeninsula Health · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is evidence of improved adherence and treatment outcomes when patients' treatment preferences are considered, and shared decision making is utilized. PURPOSE: We aimed to better understand treatment preferences among Australians with treatment-resistant depression (TRD), focusing on the specific treatment attributes that people value (such as effectiveness, risk of side effects and cost) and their relative importance. The risk-benefit trade-offs that characterize treatment choices were also examined. PATIENTS AND

methodsAn online survey of 75 patients with experience of TRD was conducted, consisting of two discrete choice experiment (DCE) components - a medication DCE and a treatment plan DCE. Participants were able to prioritize and trade off different features of medications and treatment plans. Additional questions aimed to better define this population group, which in Australia is poorly understood.

resultsIn both DCEs, two distinct latent classes were identified. In the medication DCE, the classes were distinguished by willingness to consider new treatment alternatives. Participants in class 1 were reluctant to give up current treatment, while those in the slightly larger class 2 preferred new treatment options. In both classes, treatment effectiveness and cost were the greatest contributors to preference. Similar behavior was seen in the treatment plan DCE, with the larger class more likely to choose a new plan over their current treatment arrangement. Participants preferred medications that were low-cost, taken orally, had a high percentage improvement in mood symptoms, high rate of remission and low risk of weight gain. A similar result was found in preferences for treatment plans such that plans with the greatest effectiveness and lowest cost were most favorable.

conclusionPatient preferences should routinely be considered and discussed to guide informed decisions regarding the value of new and existing medications for TRD and how they sit in the context of treatment plans.

Indexed as

behavioral economicsmajor depressive disorderpatient centricitypatient preferencespatient value mappingquantitative research

Identifiers

PMID34321870
PMCPMC8309674
OpenAlexW3186867759

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.