Variation in Treatment Priorities for Chronic Hepatitis C: A Latent Class Analysis

Liana Fraenkel (), Joseph Anthony Lim, Guadalupe Garcia-Tsao, Valerie Reyna, Alexander Monto and John F. P. Bridges
Additional contact information
Liana Fraenkel: Yale University School of Medicine
Guadalupe Garcia-Tsao: Yale University School of Medicine
Valerie Reyna: Cornell University
Alexander Monto: Section of Digestive Diseases, University of California, San Francisco
John F. P. Bridges: John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health

The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, 2016, vol. 9, issue 3, No 6, 249 pages

Abstract: Abstract Background Data describing patients’ priorities, or main concerns, are essential to inform important decisions in healthcare, including treatment planning, diagnostic testing, and the development of programs to improve access and delivery of care. To date, the majority of studies performed does not account for variability in patients’ priorities, and as a consequence may not effectively inform end users. The objective of this study was to examine the value of segmentation analysis as a method to illustrate variability in priorities for treatment of chronic hepatitis C (HCV). Methods We elicited patients’ main concerns when considering antiviral therapy for HCV using a Best–Worst Scaling experiment (Case 1) with ten objects. Latent class analysis was used to estimate part-worth utilities and the probability that each respondent belongs to each segment. Results In the aggregate, subjects (N = 162) had three main concerns: (1) not being cured; (2) experiencing a lot of side effects; and (3) developing viral resistance to therapy. Segmentation into two groups demonstrated that both groups prioritized the likelihood of cure and coping with side effects, but that only one group (n = 78) was concerned about developing viral resistance to therapy, while subjects in the second group (n = 84) prioritized being able to keep up with their responsibilities. Further segmentation revealed distinct clusters of patients with unique priorities. Conclusions Patients’ priorities vary significantly. Preference studies should consider including methods to determine whether distinct clusters of priorities and/or concerns exist in order to accurately inform end users’ decision making.

Date: 2016
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40271-015-0147-7 Abstract (text/html)
Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:spr:patien:v:9:y:2016:i:3:d:10.1007_s40271-015-0147-7

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.springer.com/economics/journal/40271

DOI: 10.1007/s40271-015-0147-7

Access Statistics for this article

The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research is currently edited by Christopher I. Carswell

More articles in The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research from Springer, International Academy of Health Preference Research
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().