Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T15:24:56.408Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

QUANTITATIVE PATIENT PREFERENCE EVIDENCE FOR HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT: A CASE STUDY

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 July 2013

Ann-Sylvia Brooker ,
Steven Carcone ,
William Witteman  and
Murray Krahn
Ann-Sylvia Brooker
Affiliation:
THETA (Toronto Health Economics and Technology Assessment) collaborative
Steven Carcone
Affiliation:
THETA (Toronto Health Economics and Technology Assessment) collaborative
William Witteman
Affiliation:
THETA (Toronto Health Economics and Technology Assessment) collaborative
Murray Krahn
Affiliation:
THETA (Toronto Health Economics and Technology Assessment) collaborative
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives: We conducted a systematic review of quantitative research regarding patients’ preferences, perspectives and values for ventilation among chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients. Our objective was to explore the feasibility and desirability of incorporating patient preferences within the health technology assessment (HTA) process by working through a case study.

Methods: Medical and economic databases were searched for studies published in English from 1990 through March 4, 2011. Studies were selected based on title and abstract. Due to the heterogeneity of the studies, data were analyzed using a narrative synthesis approach.

Results: Among 1833 identified citations, twelve studies met our inclusion criteria. Ten of these studies pertained to COPD patient preferences for ventilation. Results indicate that a significant proportion of COPD patients are willing to forgo ventilation, particularly when it is expressed as “indefinite life support” (60–78 percent) rather than as temporary modality. Results indicate that patient preferences for mechanical or noninvasive ventilation cannot be predicted by covariates (e.g., age, quality of life) or by others who are frequently called upon to make decisions are their behalf.

Conclusions: We found that it is indeed feasible to conduct a systematic review of quantitative preference-related evidence for an HTA topic. However, the process of conducting this preference-related case study also revealed several challenges because there is a high degree of variation in taxonomy, instrumentation, and study design. Therefore, we do not recommend it as a routine part of the HTA process, but we suggest that it is a promising area to pursue for preference-sensitive technological decisions.

Keywords

Health technologyPatient preferenceCOPDVentilationReview
Type
METHODS
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 29 , Issue 3 , July 2013 , pp. 290 - 300
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1.Facey, K, Boivin, A, Gracia, J, et al.Patients’ perspectives in health technology assessment: A route to robust evidence and fair deliberation. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2010;26:334–340.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2.Boivin, A, Green, J, van der Meulen, J, Légaré, F, Nolte, E. Why consider patients’ preferences? A discourse analysis of clinical practice guideline developers. Med Care. 2009;47:908–915.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3.Bridges, JF, Jones, C. Patient-based health technology assessment: A vision of the future. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2007;23:30–35.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4.Krahn, M, Naglie, G. The next step in guideline development: Incorporating patient preferences. JAMA. 2008;300:436–438.Google ScholarPubMed
5.Barham, L. Public and patient involvement at the UK National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Patient. 2011;4:1–10.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6.Gagnon, M-P, Lepage-Savary, D, Gagnon, J, et al.Introducing patient perspective in health technology assessment at the local level. BMC Health Serv Res. 2009;9:54.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7.Lee, A, Skott, LS, Hansen, HP. Organizational and patient-related assessments in HTAs: State of the art. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009;25:530–536.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8.Hansen, HP, Lee, A, van Randwijk, CB. Patient aspects: A review of fifty-eight Danish HTA reports. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2011;27:330–336.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9.Messina, J, Grainger, DL. A pilot study to identify areas for further improvements in patient and public involvement in health technology assessments for medicines. Patient. 2012;5:199–211.Google ScholarPubMed
10.Giacomini, M, DeJean, D, Simeonov, D, Smith, A. Experiences of living and dying with COPD: A systematic review and synthesis of the qualitative empirical literature. Ont Health Technol Assess Ser. 2012;12:1–47.Google ScholarPubMed
11.Norris, WM, Nielsen, EL, Engelberg, RA, Curtis, JR. Treatment preferences for resuscitation and critical care among homeless persons. Chest. 2005;127:2180–2187.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12.Wilson, KG, Aaron, SD, Vandemheen, KL, et al.Evaluation of a decision aid for making choices about intubation and mechanical ventilation in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Patient Educ Couns. 2005;57:88–95.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13.Mays, N, Pope, C, Popay, J. Systematically reviewing qualitative and quantitative evidence to inform management and policy-making in the health field. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2005;10(Suppl 1):6–20.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14.Chakrabarti, B, Sulaiman, MI, Davies, L, Calverley, PMA, Warburton, CJ, Angus, RM. A study of patient attitudes in the United Kingdom toward ventilatory support in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. J Palliat Med. 2009;12:1029–1035.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15.Gaber, KA, Barnett, M, McGavin, CR, Planchant, Y. Attitudes of 100 patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease to artificial ventilation and cardiopulmonary resuscitation. J Palliat Med. 2004;18:626–629.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16.Rocker, GM, Dodek, PM, Heyland, DK, Canadian Researchers at the End of Life N. Toward optimal end-of-life care for patients with advanced chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: Insights from a multicentre study. Can Respir J. 2008;15:249–254.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17.Lynn, J, Ely, EW, Zhong, Z, et al.Living and dying with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2000;48:S91–100.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18.Goldstein, RS, Psek, JA, Gort, EH. Home mechanical ventilation: Demographics and user perspectives. Chest. 1995;108:1581–1586.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19.Jones, SE, Packham, S, Hebden, M, Smith, AP. Domiciliary nocturnal intermittent positive pressure ventilation in patients with respiratory failure due to severe COPD: Long-term follow up and effect on survival. Thorax. 1998;53:495–498.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20.Claessens, MT, Lynn, J, Zhong, Z, et al.Dying with lung cancer or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: Insights from SUPPORT. Study to Understand Prognoses and Preferences for Outcomes and Risks of Treatments. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2000;48:S146–S153.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21.Stapleton, RD, Nielsen, EL, Engelberg, RA, Patrick, DL, Curtis, JR. Association of depression and life-sustaining treatment preferences in patients with COPD. Chest. 2005;127:328–334.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22.Levin, I, Schneider, S, Gaeth, G. All frames are not created equal: A typology and Critical Analysis of Framing Effects. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 1998;76:149–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23.Travaline, JM, Silverman, HJ. Discussions with outpatients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease regarding mechanical ventilation as life-sustaining therapy. South Med J. 1995;88:1034–1038.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
24.Dales, RE, O'Connor, A, Hebert, P, Sullivan, K, McKim, D, Llewellyn-Thomas, H. Intubation and mechanical ventilation for COPD: Development of an instrument to elicit patient preferences. Chest. 1999;116:792–800.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Supplementary material: File

Brooker et al. supplementary material

Supplementary table

Download Brooker et al. supplementary material(File)
File 222.7 KB