Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39206174›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in medicine2024

Patient preferences for inflammatory bowel disease treatments: protocol development of a global preference survey using a discrete choice experiment.

Elise Schoefs, Séverine Vermeire, Marc Ferrante, João Sabino, Bram Verstockt, Luisa Avedano, Maria Stella De Rocchis, Magdalena Sajak-Szczerba, Roberto Saldaña, Noortje Straetemans and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

13 authors.

Elise SchoefsDepartment of Pharmaceutical and Pharmacological Sciences, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Séverine VermeireDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University Hospitals Leuven, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Marc FerranteDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University Hospitals Leuven, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
João SabinoDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University Hospitals Leuven, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Bram VerstocktDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University Hospitals Leuven, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Luisa AvedanoEuropean Federation of Crohn's & Ulcerative Colitis Associations (EFCCA), Brussels, Belgium.
Maria Stella De RocchisEuropean Federation of Crohn's & Ulcerative Colitis Associations (EFCCA), Brussels, Belgium.
Magdalena Sajak-SzczerbaEuropean Federation of Crohn's & Ulcerative Colitis Associations (EFCCA), Brussels, Belgium.
Roberto SaldañaEuropean Federation of Crohn's & Ulcerative Colitis Associations (EFCCA), Brussels, Belgium.
Noortje StraetemansDepartment of Gastroenterology, AZ Vesalius, Tongeren, Belgium.
Martina VandebroekFaculty of Economics and Business, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Rosanne JanssensDepartment of Pharmaceutical and Pharmacological Sciences, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Isabelle HuysDepartment of Pharmaceutical and Pharmacological Sciences, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: As the therapeutic landscape for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) continues to expand, a need exists to understand how patients perceive and value different attributes associated with their disease as well as with current and emerging treatments. These insights can inform the development and regulation of effective interventions for IBD, benefiting various stakeholders including healthcare professionals, drug developers, regulators, Health Technology Assessment bodies, payers, and ultimately patients suffering from IBD. In response to this, the present patient preference study was developed with the aim to (1) determine the relative preference weights for IBD treatment and disease related attributes, and (2) explain how preferences may differ across patients with different characteristics (preference heterogeneity). Methods: The patient preference study (PPS) was developed through an 8-step process, with each step being informed by an advisory board. This process included: (1) stated preference method selection, (2) attribute and level development (including a scoping literature review, focus group discussions, and advisory board meetings), (3) choice task construction, (4) sample size estimation, (5) survey implementation, (6) piloting, (7) translation, and (8) pre-testing. The resulting discrete choice experiment (DCE) survey comprises 14 attributes with between two and five varying levels. Participants will answer 15 DCE questions with a partial profile design, where each of the choice questions encompasses two hypothetical treatment profiles showing four attributes. Additionally, questions about patients' socio-demographic and clinical characteristics, as well as contextual factors are implemented. The survey is available in 15 different languages and aims to minimally recruit 700 patients globally. Discussion: This protocol gives valuable insights toward preference researchers and decision-makers on how PPS design can be transparently reported, demonstrating solutions to remaining gaps in preference research. Results of the PPS will provide evidence regarding the disease and treatment related characteristics that are most important for IBD patients, and how these may differ across patients with different characteristics. These findings will yield valuable insights applicable to preference research, drug development, regulatory approval, and reimbursement processes, enabling decision making across the medicinal product life cycle that is aligned with the true needs of IBD patients.

Indexed as

attributesdiscrete choice experimentdrug developmentfocus group discussionshealthcare decision-makinginflammatory bowel diseaselevelspatient preferences

Identifiers

PMID39206174
PMCPMC11349669

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.