A test of concordance between patient and psychiatrist valuations of multiple treatment goals for schizophrenia.

BACKGROUND: While much discussion has been placed on the problem of poor compliance in the treatment of schizophrenia, there has been little discussion on the concordance between patients and psychiatrists, an important contributing factor to patient-centred care. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the concordance between patients' and psychiatrists' (ordinal and cardinal) valuations of multiple goals for schizophrenia treatment and to illustrate the utility of the self-explicated method in valuing a large number of treatment goals. DESIGN: Twenty treatment goals were identified during focus groups and literature review and were presented to patients and psychiatrists during structured interviews. Respondents were asked to rank the multiple treatment goals and rate them on a 5-point Likert scale. Three scores were calculated based on the ranking (1-20), rating (Likert scale) (1-5) and a self-explicated method estimated as the product of rating and ranking score (1-100). Concordance was tested using Spearman's rho for overall ordinal rankings and via anova and F-test for the cardinal values assigned to a specific treatment goal. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 105 outpatients diagnosed with schizophrenia and 160 psychiatrists in Germany. RESULTS: Patient and psychiatrist values were concordant when the ordinal properties of their valuations were assessed by rating (ρ = 0.63; P = 0.002), ranking (ρ = 0.51; P = 0.02) and self-explicated methods (ρ = 0.54; P = 0.01). Significant discordances were found when comparing the cardinal value placed on any given treatment goal using all three approaches, but the self-explicated method produced a more discerning statistic. Relative to patients, psychiatrists significantly (P < 0.05) overvalued reduced lack of emotion, improved sexual pleasure and improved communication while undervaluing reuptake of activities of daily living, improved satisfaction and recovered capacity for work. CONCLUSIONS: While there is an overall concordance between patients' and psychiatrists' valuation, significantly different valuations on specific goals can be identified. Here, psychiatrists tend to focus on 'textbook' outcomes, while patients are more concerned with functioning and living a normal life. This study also demonstrates the importance of comparing the concordance in treatment goals and the importance of preference-based methods, such as the self-explicated method, in the study of concordance.

Can patients diagnosed with schizophrenia complete choice-based conjoint analysis tasks?

BACKGROUND: Schizophrenia is a severe mental illness associated with hallucinations, delusions, apathy, poor social functioning, and impaired cognition. Researchers and funders have been hesitant to focus efforts on treatment preferences of patients with schizophrenia because of the perceived cognitive burden that research methods, such as conjoint analysis, place on them. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to test if patients diagnosed with schizophrenia were able to complete a choice-based conjoint analysis (often referred to as discrete-choice experiments) and to test if meaningful trade-offs were being made. METHODS: German outpatients diagnosed with schizophrenia were eligible to participate in this study if they were aged 18-65 years, had received treatment for at least 1 year and were not experiencing acute symptoms. Conjoint analysis tasks were based on six attributes, each with two levels, which were identified via a literature review and focus groups. A psychologist in a professional interview facility presented each respondent with the eight tasks with little explanation. All interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed to verify that respondents understood the tasks. Preferences were assessed using logistic regression, with a correction for clustering. RESULTS: We found evidence that the 21 patients diagnosed with schizophrenia participating in the study could complete conjoint analysis tasks in a meaningful way. Patients not only related to the scenarios presented in conjoint tasks, but explicitly stated that they used their own preferences to judge which scenarios were better. Statistical analysis confirmed all hypotheses about the attributes (i.e. all attributes had the expected sign). Having a supportive physician, not feeling slowed, and improvements in stressful situations (p < 0.01) were the most important attributes. CONCLUSIONS: We found that patients diagnosed with schizophrenia can complete conjoint analysis tasks, that they base their decisions on their own preferences, and that patients make trade-offs between attributes.

A pharmaco-economic analysis of patients with schizophrenia switching to generic risperidone involving a possible compliance loss.

BACKGROUND: As schizophrenia patients are typically suspicious of, or are hostile to changes they may be reluctant to accept generic substitution, possibly affecting compliance. This may counteract drug costs savings due to less symptom control and increased hospitalization risk. Although compliance losses following generic substitution have not been quantified so far, one can estimate the possible health-economic consequences. The current study aims to do so by considering the case of risperidone in Germany. METHODS: An existing DES model was adapted to compare staying on branded risperidone with generic substitution. Differences include the probability of non-compliance and medication costs. Incremental probability of non-compliance after generic substitution was varied between 2.5% and 10%, while generic medication costs were assumed to be 40% lower. Effect of medication price was assessed as well as the effect of applying compliance losses to all treatment settings. The probability of staying on branded risperidone being cost-effective was calculated for various outcomes of a hypothetical study that would investigate non-compliance following generic substitution of risperidone. RESULTS: If the incremental probability of non-compliance after generic substitution is 2.5%, 5.0%, 7.5% and 10% respectively, incremental effects of staying on branded risperidone are 0.004, 0.007, 0.011 and 0.015 Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALYs). Incremental costs are euro757, euro343, -euro123 and -euro554 respectively. Benefits of staying on branded risperidone include improved symptom control and fewer hospitalizations. If generic substitution results in a 5.2% higher probability of non-compliance, the model predicts staying on branded risperidone to be cost-effective (NICE threshold of 30,000 per QALY gained). Compliance losses of more than 6.9% makes branded risperidone the dominant alternative. Results are sensitive to the locations at which compliance loss is applied and the price of generic risperidone. The probability that staying on branded risperidone is cost-effective would increase with larger compliance differences and more patients included in the hypothetical study. CONCLUSION: The model predicts that it is cost-effective to keep a patient with schizophrenia in Germany on branded risperidone instead of switching him/her to generic risperidone (assuming a 40% reduction in medication costs), if the incremental probability of becoming non-compliant after generic substitution exceeds 5.2%.

Identifying patient-relevant endpoints among individuals with schizophrenia: an application of patient-centered health technology assessment.

OBJECTIVES: Schizophrenia imposes a great burden on society, and while evaluation should play an important role in informing society's efforts to alleviate these burdens, it is unclear what "endpoints" should be chosen as the objective of such analyses. The objectives of the study were to elicit endpoints directly from patients with schizophrenia, to ascertain whether patients are sufficiently cognoscente to express what endpoints are and are not important to them and to rank the relevant endpoints. METHODS: We applied principles of patient-centered health technology assessment to identify and value endpoints from the patient's perspective. Focus groups were conducted to elicit endpoints, using interpretive phenomalogical analysis (IPA) to guide the collection, analysis and interpretation of data. Patient interviews were subsequently used to elicit patient preference over endpoints. Respondents were presented with cards outlining the endpoints and asked to remove irrelevant cards. They where then asked to identify and rank their five most relevant endpoints in order of importance. Interviews were recorded for the purposed of triangulation, and data was analyzed using descriptive statistics. Patients were recruited from five geographically diverse cities in Germany. Eligibility required a diagnosis of schizophrenia by a physician and treatment with an antipsychotic medication for at least one year. Respondents were excluded if they were experiencing an acute episode. RESULTS: Thirteen endpoints emerged as important from the focus groups spanning side-effects, functional status, processes of care and clinical outcomes. Respondents could clearly identify relevant and irrelevant endpoints, and rank which factors were important to them. Triangulation between field notes of the ranking exercise and recordings confirmed that rankings were not arbitrary, but justified from the respondents' point of view. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with schizophrenia can express preferences over endpoints. Our results show that qualitative methods such as IPA can be used to identify factors, but ranking exercises provide a more robust method for ranking the importance of endpoints. Future research involving patients with schizophrenia ranking outcomes is needed to identify variations across patients and methods such as conjoint analysis could prove beneficial in identifying acceptable tradeoffs across endpoints.