Utilising Patient and Public Involvement in Stated Preference Research in Health: Learning from the Existing Literature and a Case Study.
Journal
The patient
ISSN: 1178-1661
Titre abrégé: Patient
Pays: New Zealand
ID NLM: 101309314
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
07 2021
07 2021
Historique:
pubmed:
5
8
2020
medline:
8
1
2022
entrez:
5
8
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Publications reporting discrete choice experiments of healthcare interventions rarely discuss whether patient and public involvement (PPI) activities have been conducted. This paper presents examples from the existing literature and a detailed case study from the National Institute for Health Research-funded PATHWAY programme that comprehensively included PPI activities at multiple stages of preference research. Reflecting on these examples, as well as the wider PPI literature, we describe the different stages at which it is possible to effectively incorporate PPI across preference research, including the design, recruitment and dissemination of projects. Benefits of PPI activities include gaining practical insights from a wider perspective, which can positively impact experiment design as well as survey materials. Further benefits included advice around recruitment and reaching a greater audience with dissemination activities, amongst others. There are challenges associated with PPI activities; examples include time, cost and outlining expectations. Overall, although we acknowledge practical difficulties associated with PPI, this work highlights that it is possible for preference researchers to implement PPI across preference research. Further research systematically comparing methods related to PPI in preference research and their associated impact on the methods and results of studies would strengthen the literature.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32748242
doi: 10.1007/s40271-020-00439-2
pii: 10.1007/s40271-020-00439-2
pmc: PMC8205869
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
399-412Subventions
Organisme : Department of Health
ID : RP-PG-1211-20011
Pays : United Kingdom
Références
Staniszewska S, Denegri S, Matthews R, Minogue V. Reviewing progress in public involvement in NIHR research: developing and implementing a new vision for the future. BMJ Open. 2018;8:e017124. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-017124 .
doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-017124
pubmed: 30061427
pmcid: 6067369
Caress A, Ford A, Roberts L, Turner K, Ward D, Williamson T. Briefing notes for researchers: public involvement in NHS, public health and social care research. INVOLVE. 2012. Available from: https://www.invo.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/9938_INVOLVE_Briefing_Notes_WEB.pdf . Accessed 30 June 2020.
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Patient and public involvement policy. Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/about/nice-communities/nice-and-the-public/public-involvement/public-involvement-programme/patient-public-involvement-policy . Accessed 16 Jan 2020.
Minogue V, Cooke M, Donskoy AL, Vicary P, Wells B. Patient and public involvement in reducing health and care research waste. Res Involv Engagem. 2018;4:5. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-018-0087-1 .
doi: 10.1186/s40900-018-0087-1
pubmed: 29449962
pmcid: 5808395
Blackburn S, McLachlan S, Jowett S, Kinghorn P, Gill P, Higginbottom A, et al. The extent, quality and impact of patient and public involvement in primary care research: a mixed methods study. Res Involv Engagem. 2018;4:16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-018-0100-8 .
doi: 10.1186/s40900-018-0100-8
pubmed: 29850029
pmcid: 5966874
INVOLVE. What is public involvement in research? Available from: https://www.invo.org.uk/find-out-more/what-is-public-involvement-in-research-2/ . Accessed 1 Dec 2019.
Drummond M, Schulpher M, Claxton K, Stoddart GL, Torrance GW. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. 4th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2015.
Dakin H, Devlin N, Feng Y, Rice N, O’Neill P, Parkin D. The influence of cost-effectiveness and other factors on nice decisions. Health Econ. 2015;24:1256–71. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.3086 .
doi: 10.1002/hec.3086
pubmed: 25251336
Kreif N, Grieve R, Hangartner D, Turner AJ, Nikolova S, Sutton M. Examination of the synthetic control method for evaluating health policies with multiple treated units. Health Econ. 2016;25:1514–28. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.3258 .
doi: 10.1002/hec.3258
pubmed: 26443693
Mahieu P-A, Andersson H, Beaumais O, Crastes dit Sourd R, Hess S, Wolff F-C. Stated preferences: a unique database composed of 1657 recent published articles in journals related to agriculture, environment, or health. Rev Agric Food Environ Stud. 2017;98:201–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41130-017-0053-6 .
doi: 10.1007/s41130-017-0053-6
Soekhai V, de Bekker-Grob EW, Ellis AR, Vass CM. Discrete choice experiments in health economics: past, present and future. Pharmacoeconomics. 2019;37:201–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-018-0734-2 .
doi: 10.1007/s40273-018-0734-2
pubmed: 30392040
Ryan M, Gerard K. Using discrete choice experiments to value health care programmes: current practice and future research reflections. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2003;2:55–64.
pubmed: 14619274
Clark MD, Determann D, Petrou S, Moro D, de Bekker-Grob EW. Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature. Pharmacoeconomics. 2014;32:883–902. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-014-0170-x .
doi: 10.1007/s40273-014-0170-x
pubmed: 25005924
Flynn T, Huynh E, Sydney N, Corke C, Health B, Hawkins G. Best-worst scaling allows us to quantify attitudes as well as preferences; response times tells us which are “gut” attitudes with no predictive power. In: Medical decision meeting. Miami; 20th Oct 2014.
Dowie J, Kaltoft MK. Translating the results of discrete choice experiments into p-/e-/m-health decision support tools. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2019;261:193–8. https://doi.org/10.3233/978-1-61499-975-1-193 .
doi: 10.3233/978-1-61499-975-1-193
pubmed: 31156115
Mühlbacher AC, Juhnke C. Patient preferences versus physicians’ judgement: does it make a difference in healthcare decision making? Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2013;11:163–80. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40258-013-0023-3 .
doi: 10.1007/s40258-013-0023-3
pubmed: 23529716
Vass CM, Payne K. Using discrete choice experiments to inform the benefitrisk assessment of medicines: are we ready yet? Pharmacoeconomics. 2017;35:1–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-017-0518-0 .
doi: 10.1007/s40273-017-0518-0
Medical Device Innovation Consortium (MDIC). Patient centred benefit-risk project report: a framework for incorporating information on patient preferences regarding benefit and risk into regulatory assessments of new medical technology. 2017. Available from: https://mdic.org/project/patient-centered-benefit-risk-pcbr/ . Accessed 10 July 2020.
Mott DJ. Incorporating quantitative patient preference data into healthcare decision making processes: is HTA falling behind? Patient. 2018;11:249–52. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-018-0305-9 .
doi: 10.1007/s40271-018-0305-9
pubmed: 29500706
Ho MP, Gonzalez JM, Lerner HP, Neuland CY, Whang JM, McMurry-Heath M, et al. Incorporating patient-preference evidence into regulatory decision making. Surg Endosc Other Interv Tech. 2015;29:2984–93. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-014-4044-2 .
doi: 10.1007/s00464-014-4044-2
Innovative Medicines Initiative. Patient preferences in benefit-risk assessments during the drug life cycle (PREFER) project. Grant Agreement No. 115966. 2016. Available from: https://www.imi-prefer.eu/about/ . Accessed 10 July 2020.
Bouvy JC, Cowie L, Lovett R, Morrison D, Livingstone H, Crabb N. Use of patient preference studies in HTA decision making: a NICE perspective. Patient. 2020;13(2):145–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-019-00408-4 .
doi: 10.1007/s40271-019-00408-4
pubmed: 31942698
Bridges JF, Hauber AB, Marshall D, Lloyd A, Prosser L, 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;14:403–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2010.11.013 .
doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2010.11.013
pubmed: 21669364
Lancsar E, Louviere J. Conducting discrete choice experiments to inform healthcare decision making: a user’s guide. Pharmacoeconomics. 2008;26:661–77. https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-200826080-00004 .
doi: 10.2165/00019053-200826080-00004
pubmed: 18620460
Reed Johnson F, Lancsar E, Marshall D, Kilambi V, Mühlbacher 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;16:3–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2012.08.2223 .
doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2012.08.2223
pubmed: 23337210
Hauber AB, González JM, Groothuis-Oudshoorn CGM, Prior T, Marshall DA, Cunningham C, et al. Statistical methods for the analysis of discrete choice experiments: a report of the ISPOR Conjoint Analysis Good Research Practices Task Force. Value Health. 2016;19:300–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2016.04.004 .
doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2016.04.004
pubmed: 27325321
Hollin IL, Craig BM, Coast J, Beusterien K, Vass C, DiSantostefano R, et al. Reporting formative qualitative research to support the development of quantitative preference study protocols and corresponding survey instruments: guidelines for authors and reviewers. Patient. 2020;13:121–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-019-00401-x .
doi: 10.1007/s40271-019-00401-x
pubmed: 31840215
Wittenberg E, Bharel M, Saada A, Santiago E, Bridges JFP, Weinreb L. Measuring the preferences of homeless women for cervical cancer screening interventions: development of a best-worst scaling survey. Patient. 2015;8:455–67. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-014-0110-z .
doi: 10.1007/s40271-014-0110-z
pubmed: 25586646
pmcid: 4501895
Coast J, Flynn TN, Natarajan L, Sproston K, Lewis J, Louviere JJ, et al. Valuing the ICECAP capability index for older people. Soc Sci Med. 2008;67:874–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2008.05.015 .
doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2008.05.015
pubmed: 18572295
Morgan H, Thomson G, Crossland N, Dykes F, Hoddinott P. Combining PPI with qualitative research to engage ‘harder-to-reach’ populations: service user groups as co-applicants on a platform study for a trial. Res Involv Engagem. 2016;2:7. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-016-0023-1 .
doi: 10.1186/s40900-016-0023-1
pubmed: 29062508
pmcid: 5611582
Ocloo J, Matthews R. From tokenism to empowerment: progressing patient and public involvement in healthcare improvement. BMJ Qual Saf. 2016;25:626–32. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2015-004839 .
doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2015-004839
pubmed: 26993640
pmcid: 4975844
Adams J, Bateman B, Becker F, Cresswell T, Flynn D, McNaughton R, et al. Effectiveness and acceptability of parental financial incentives and quasi-mandatory schemes for increasing uptake of vaccinations in preschool children: systematic review, qualitative study and discrete choice experiment. Health Technol Assess. 2015;19:94. https://doi.org/10.3310/hta19940 .
doi: 10.3310/hta19940
Coxon D, Frisher M, Jinks C, Jordan K, Paskins Z, Peat G. The relative importance of perceived doctor’s attitude on the decision to consult for symptomatic osteoarthritis: a choice-based conjoint analysis study. BMJ Open. 2015;5:10. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2015-009625 .
doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-009625
dosReis S, Castillo WC, Ross M, Fitz-Randolph M, Vaughn-Lee A, Butler B. Attribute development using continuous stakeholder engagement to prioritize treatment decisions: a framework for patient-centered research. Value Health. 2016;19:758–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2016.02.013 .
doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2016.02.013
pubmed: 27712703
Janssen EM, Segal JB, Bridges JFP. A framework for instrument development of a choice experiment: an application to type 2 Ddabetes. Patient. 2016;9:465–79. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-016-0170-3 .
doi: 10.1007/s40271-016-0170-3
pubmed: 27120338
Morgan H, Hoddinott P, Thomson G, Crossland N, Farrar S, Yi D, et al. Benefits of incentives for breastfeeding and smoking cessation in pregnancy (BIBS): a mixed-methods study to inform trial design. Health Technol Assess. 2015;19:1–516. https://doi.org/10.3310/hta19300 .
doi: 10.3310/hta19300
pubmed: 25897655
pmcid: 4780978
Peay HL. Erratum: a community-engaged approach to quantifying caregiver preferences for the benefits and risks of emerging therapies for Duchenne muscular dystrophy (Clin Ther. 2014;36:624–37). Clin Ther. 2014;36:1313.
doi: 10.1016/j.clinthera.2014.07.001
Seo J, Smith BD, Estey E, Voyard E, O’Donoghue B, Bridges JFP. Developing an instrument to assess patient preferences for benefits and risks of treating acute myeloid leukemia to promote patient-focused drug development. Curr Med Res Opin. 2018;34:2031–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/03007995.2018.1456414 .
doi: 10.1080/03007995.2018.1456414
pubmed: 29565196
Wittenberg E. Instrument development in choice experiments. Commentary on: “applying a framework for instrument development of a choice experiment to measure treatment preferences in type 2 diabetes”. Patient. 2016;9:379–81. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-016-0186-8 .
doi: 10.1007/s40271-016-0186-8
pubmed: 27406173
Wells A, McNicol K, Reeves D, Salmon P, Davies L, Heagerty A, et al. Improving the effectiveness of psychological interventions for depression and anxiety in the cardiac rehabilitation pathway using group-based metacognitive therapy (PATHWAY Group MCT): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial. Trials. 2018;19:215. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-018-2593-8 .
doi: 10.1186/s13063-018-2593-8
pubmed: 29615092
pmcid: 5883514
British Heart Foundation. National Audit of Cardiac Rehabilitation (NACR) report 2018. Available from: https://www.bhf.org.uk/informationsupport/publications/statistics/national-audit-of-cardiac-rehabilitation-quality-and-outcomes-report-2018 . Accessed 17 June 2019.
Norman R, Cronin P, Viney R. A Pilot Discrete Choice experiment to explore preferences for EQ-5D-5L health states. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2013;11:287–98. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40258-013-0035-z .
doi: 10.1007/s40258-013-0035-z
pubmed: 23649892
Cheraghi-Sohi S, Hole AR, Mead N, McDonald R, Whalley D, Bower P, et al. What patients want from primary care consultations: a discrete choice experiment to identify patients’ priorities. Ann Fam Med. 2008;6:107–15. https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.816 .
doi: 10.1370/afm.816
pubmed: 18332402
pmcid: 2267425
McPhillips R, Salmon P, Wells A, Fisher P. Cardiac rehabilitation patients’ accounts of their emotional distress and psychological needs: a qualitative study. J Am Heart Assoc. 2019;8:e011117. https://doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.118.011117 .
doi: 10.1161/JAHA.118.011117
pubmed: 31433708
pmcid: 6585358
McPhillips R, Salmon P, Wells A, Fisher P. Qualitative analysis of emotional distress in cardiac patients from the perspectives of cognitive behavioral and metacognitive theories: why might cognitive behavioral therapy have limited benefit, and might metacognitive therapy be more effective? Front Psychol. 2019;9:2288. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02288 .
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02288
pubmed: 30662413
pmcid: 6328488
Bee P, Brooks H, Callaghan P, Lovell K. A research handbook for patient and public involvement researchers. Manchester: Manchester University Press; 2018.
doi: 10.7765/9781526136527
Brett J, Staniszewska S, Mockford C, Herron-Marx S, Hughes J, Tysall C, et al. Mapping the impact of patient and public involvement on health and social care research: a systematic review. Health Expect. 2014;17:637–50. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1369-7625.2012.00795.x .
doi: 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2012.00795.x
pubmed: 22809132
Determann D, Gyrd-Hansen D, de Wit GA, de Bekker-Grob EW, Steyerberg EW, Lambooij MS, et al. Designing unforced choice experiments to inform health care decision making: implications of using opt-out, neither, or status quo alternatives in discrete choice experiments. Med Decis Mak. 2019;39(6):681–92. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989x19862275 .
doi: 10.1177/0272989x19862275
de Bekker-Grob EW, Donkers B, Jonker MF, Stolk EA. Sample size requirements for discrete-choice experiments in healthcare: a practical guide. Patient. 2015;8:373–84. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-015-0118-z .
doi: 10.1007/s40271-015-0118-z
pubmed: 25726010
pmcid: 4575371
Wilson P, Mathie E, Keenan J, McNeilly E, Goodman C, Howe A, et al. ReseArch with Patient and Public invOlvement: a RealisT evaluation: the RAPPORT study. Southampton (UK): NIHR Journals Library; 2015. https://doi.org/10.3310/hsdr03380 .
Bagley HJ, Short H, Harman NL, Hickey HR, Gamble CL, Woolfall K, et al. A patient and public involvement (PPI) toolkit for meaningful and flexible involvement in clinical trials: a work in progress. Res Involv Engagem. 2016;2:15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-016-0029-8 .
doi: 10.1186/s40900-016-0029-8
pubmed: 29062516
pmcid: 5611579
Domecq JP, Prutsky G, Elraiyah T, Wang Z, Nabhan M, Shippee N, et al. Patient engagement in research: a systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14:89. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-14-89 .
doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-14-89
pubmed: 24568690
pmcid: 3938901
Ennis L, Wykes T. Impact of patient involvement in mental health research: longitudinal study. Br J Psychiatry. 2013;203:381–6. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.bp.112.119818 .
doi: 10.1192/bjp.bp.112.119818
pubmed: 24029538
Lovell K, Bee P, Bower P, Brooks H, Cahoon P, Callaghan P, et al. Training to enhance user and carer involvement in mental health-care planning: the EQUIP research programme including a cluster RCT. Program Grants Appl Res. 2019;7:1–140. https://doi.org/10.3310/pgfar07090 .
doi: 10.3310/pgfar07090
McNichol E, Grimshaw P. An innovative toolkit: increasing the role and value of patient and public involvement in the dissemination of research findings. Int Pract Dev J. 2014;4:Article 8.
Staley K. ‘Is it worth doing?’ Measuring the impact of patient and public involvement in research. Res Involv Engagem. 2015;1:6. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-015-0008-5 .
doi: 10.1186/s40900-015-0008-5
pubmed: 29062495
pmcid: 5598089
Andrews LM, Allen H, Sheppard ZA, Baylis G, Wainwright TW. More than just ticking a box…how patient and public involvement improved the research design and funding application for a project to evaluate a cycling intervention for hip osteoarthritis. Res Involv Engagem. 2015;1:13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-015-0013-8 .
doi: 10.1186/s40900-015-0013-8
pubmed: 29062501
pmcid: 5611566
Adams J, Bateman B, Becker F, Cresswell T, Flynn D, McNaughton R, et al. Effectiveness and acceptability of parental financial incentives and quasi-mandatory schemes for increasing uptake of vaccinations in preschool children: systematic review, qualitative study and discrete choice experiment. Health Technol Assess. 2015;19(94):1–176. https://doi.org/10.3310/hta19940 .
doi: 10.3310/hta19940
pubmed: 26562004
pmcid: 4781323
Brett J, Staniszewska S, Simera I, Seers K, Mockford C, Goodlad S, et al. Reaching consensus on reporting patient and public involvement (PPI) in research: methods and lessons learned from the development of reporting guidelines. BMJ Open. 2017;7:e016948. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-016948 .
doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-016948
pubmed: 29061613
pmcid: 5665282
Staniszewska S, Brett J, Simera I, Seers K, Mockford C, Goodlad S, et al. GRIPP2 reporting checklists: tools to improve reporting of patient and public involvement in research. BMJ. 2017;358:j3453. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.j3453 .
doi: 10.1136/bmj.j3453
pubmed: 28768629
pmcid: 5539518
Tomlinson J, Medlinskiene K, Cheong VL, Khan S, Fylan B. Patient and public involvement in designing and conducting doctoral research: the whys and the hows. Res Involv Engagem. 2019;5:23.
doi: 10.1186/s40900-019-0155-1
Pizzo E, Doyle C, Matthews R, Barlow J. Patient and public involvement: how much do we spend and what are the benefits? Health Expect. 2015;18:1918–26. https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.12204 .
doi: 10.1111/hex.12204
pubmed: 24813243
Thompson J, Bissell P, Cooper CL, Armitage CJ, Barber R. Exploring the impact of patient and public involvement in a cancer research setting. Qual Health Res. 2014;24:46–544. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732313514482 .
doi: 10.1177/1049732313514482
pubmed: 24277776
pmcid: 4509885