RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Although patients have different treatment preferences, these individual preferences could often be grouped in subgroups with shared preferences. Knowledge of these subgroups as well as factors associated with subgroup membership supports health care professionals in the understanding of what matters to patients in clinical decision-making. OBJECTIVES: To identify subgroups of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) based on their shared preferences toward disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), and to identify factors associated with subgroup membership. METHODS: A discrete choice experiment to determine DMARD preferences of adult patients with RA was designed based on a literature review, expert recommendations, and focus groups. In this multicenter study, patients were asked to state their preferred choice between two different hypothetical treatment options, described by seven DMARD characteristics with three levels within each characteristic. Latent class analyses and multinomial logistic regressions were used to identify subgroups and the characteristics (patient characteristics, disease-related variables, and beliefs about medicines) associated with subgroup membership. RESULTS: Among 325 participating patients with RA, three subgroups were identified: an administration-driven subgroup (45.6%), a benefit-driven subgroup (29.7%), and a balanced subgroup (24.7%). Patients who were currently using biologic DMARDs were significantly more likely to belong to the balanced subgroup than the administration-driven subgroup (relative risk ratio (RRR): 0.50, 95% CI: 0.28-0.89). Highly educated patients were significantly more likely to belong to the benefit-driven subgroup than the balanced subgroup (RRR: 11.4, 95% CI: 0.97-133.6). Patients' medication-related concerns did not contribute significantly to subgroup membership, whereas a near-significant association was found between patients' beliefs about medication necessity and their membership of the benefit-driven subgroup (RRR: 1.12, 95% CI: 1.00-1.23). CONCLUSION: Three subgroups with shared preferences were identified. Only biologic DMARD use and educational level were associated with subgroup membership. Integrating patient's medication preferences in pharmacotherapy decisions may improve the quality of decisions and possibly medication adherence.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: To comprehensively describe the identification, refinement, and selection of attributes and levels for a discrete choice experiment (DCE) on preferences of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) regarding disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs). METHODS: A mixed-methods approach, consisting of three consecutive steps: a literature review, expert recommendations, and focus groups. Attributes and levels were identified by a scoping review and compiled into a list that was evaluated on its relevance by an expert panel. The list that resulted thereafter was used to inform three focus groups, including 23 patients with RA. New attributes and levels could be identified during the focus groups. Also, a ranking exercise was performed. The patients individually ranked the attributes (ie, the ones on the list and newly identified attributes) by relevance. The patients' individual rankings were summed to derive a ranking at group level and make an a priori selection of the most relevant attributes. The group discussions were transcribed for qualitative analysis. RESULTS: Nineteen attributes, each specified by two to seven levels, were identified by the scoping review. The expert recommendations resulted in the removal of one attribute. Furthermore, two new attributes and levels were identified and two attributes were split into two. One new attribute was identified during the focus groups. The results of the ranking exercise and qualitative analysis led to the refinement and selection of the following attributes: route of administration, frequency of administration, chance of efficacy, onset of action, risk of serious infections, risk of liver injury, and risk of cancer. Each attribute was specified by three levels. CONCLUSION: This study contributes to the limited literature on the development of attributes and levels. Future research should pay more attention to a comprehensive description of this process. It ensures transparency and thereby allows researchers to judge a DCE's quality and generalizability.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: The objectives of this study were to explore the needs of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) regarding support for medication use and to gain insight into their perspective on the suitability of eHealth technologies to address these needs. METHODS: Three focus groups were conducted with 28 patients with RA. Audio recordings made during the focus groups were transcribed verbatim. Two researchers independently performed an inductive, thematic analysis on the data (ie, the transcripts and field notes). RESULTS: The following three themes that described support needs of patients with RA for medication use were identified in the data: 1) informational support; 2) practical support; and 3) emotional support. Informational support reflected the provision of information and facts, including advice, suggestions, and feedback from health care providers. Practical support included the reinforcement of practical skills as well as the provision of medication aids and pharmacy services. Emotional support reflected a trusted patient-health care provider relationship, characterized by good communication. Although potential advantages of eHealth technologies to address the patients' support needs were recognized, concerns over matters such as personal interaction with health care providers, privacy and data security, and the quality and reliability of online information were prevalent. CONCLUSION: Patients with RA have informational, practical, and emotional support needs for medication use. Informational support seems to be most important. From the patients' perspective, eHealth technologies may have the potential to address these needs. However, these technologies are regarded as a complement to, rather than a replacement of, current practices.
