It is not always about gains: Utilities and disutilities associated with treatment features in patients with moderate-to-severe psoriasis

Mannheim Institute of Public Health, Social and Preventive Medicine, Universitätsmedizin Mannheim, Medical Faculty Mannheim, Heidelberg University, Mannheim, Germany.
Patient Preference and Adherence (Impact Factor: 1.68). 03/2012; 6:187-94. DOI: 10.2147/PPA.S29285
Source: PubMed


Patient-centered care has been proposed as a strategy for improving treatment outcomes in the management of psoriasis and other chronic diseases. A more detailed understanding of patients' utilities and disutilities associated with treatment features may facilitate shared decision-making in the clinical encounter. The purpose of this study was to examine the features of psoriasis treatment that are most and least preferred by patients and to identify correlates of these preferences.
A cross-sectional survey of 163 patients with moderate-to-severe psoriasis was conducted in a German academic medical center. We assessed patients' characteristics, elicited their preferences for a range of potential treatment features, and quantified preference scores (utilities) associated with each treatment feature using hierarchical Bayes estimation. After identifying the most and least preferred treatment features, we explored correlates of these preferences using multivariate regression models.
Mean preference scores (MPS) for the least preferred treatment features were consistently greater than those for the most preferred treatment features. Patients generally expressed strong preferences against prolonged treatments in the inpatient setting (MPS = -13.48) and those with a lower probability of benefit (MPS = -12.28), while treatments with a high probability of benefit (MPS = 10.51) were generally preferred. Younger patients and women were more concerned with treatment benefit as compared with older patients and men.
Both negative and positive preferences appear important for shared decision-making. Recognition of characteristics associated with strong negative preferences may be particularly useful in promoting patient-centered environments.

Download full-text


Available from: Darcey D Terris,
  • G Reach ·
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Aim: Diabetic patients often do not adjust their insulin doses using the algorithms that they have been taught. While this behavior may intuitively have a number of causes, such as the complexity of the decision or the fear of hypoglycaemia, we propose in this article a more general, "psychophysical", explanation based on behavioral economics concepts used to describe decisions made under uncertainty and risk. The concepts discussed herein may not be familiar to clinicians, who will find here an introduction to theories that may be helpful in understanding some aspects of non-adherence to medical prescriptions. Results: 1) The Prospect Theory of Kahneman and Tversky proposes that choices made in the context of risk are subject to loss aversion. 2) Decisions under uncertainty use mental short cuts called "heuristics", which can lead to biases; for instance, overestimating the probability of the risk. 3) To understand the very concept of risk, emotions must be considered with a special focus on anticipated regret. 4) Finally, selection difficulty is an important determinant of the preference for the status quo. Conclusion: These concepts may be relevant for understanding a preference for the status quo in decisions made in a context of uncertainty and risk, such as insulin dose adjustment. We suggest that these mental mechanisms may also be involved in other aspects of patients' non-adherence. As other common human behaviors, non-adherence may actually often be a consequence of biases resulting from our ways of thinking, being both cognitive and emotional, and, according to Kahneman, more often "fast" than "slow". Empirical studies are needed to support this hypothesis.
    Diabetes & Metabolism 10/2012; 39(1). DOI:10.1016/j.diabet.2012.08.009 · 3.27 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Patient-centredness has become an important aspect of health service delivery; however, there are a limited number of studies that focus on this concept in the domain of hearing healthcare. The objective of this study was to examine and compare audiologists' preferences for patient-centredness in Portugal, India and Iran. The study used a cross-sectional survey design with audiologists recruited from three different countries. A total of 191 fully-completed responses were included in the analysis (55 from Portugal, 78 from India and 58 from Iran). The Patient-Practitioner Orientation Scale (PPOS). PPOS mean scores suggest that audiologists have a preference for patient-centredness (ie, mean of 3.6 in a 5-point scale). However, marked differences were observed between specific PPOS items suggesting these preferences vary across clinical situations. A significant level of difference (p<0.001) was found between audiologists' preferences for patient-centredness in three countries. Audiologists in Portugal had a greater preference for patient-centredness when compared to audiologists in India and Iran, although no significant differences were found in terms of age and duration of experience among these sample populations. There are differences and similarities in audiologists' preferences for patient-centredness among countries. These findings may have implications for the training of professionals and also for clinical practice in terms of optimising hearing healthcare across countries. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to
    BMJ Open 10/2014; 4(10):e005915. DOI:10.1136/bmjopen-2014-005915 · 2.27 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background Each individual psoriasis patient has different expectations and goals for biological treatment, which may differ from those of the clinician. As such, a patient-centred approach to treatment goals remains an unmet need in psoriasis.Objective The aim of this study was to review available data on patients’ and physicians’ decision criteria and expectations of biological treatment for moderate-to-severe psoriasis with the aim of developing a core set of questions for clinicians to ask patients routinely to understand what is important to them and thus better align physicians’ and patients’ expectations of treatment with biologics and its outcomes.MethodsA literature search was conducted to identify key themes and data gaps. Aspects of treatment relevant when choosing a biological agent for an individual patient were identified and compared to an existing validated instrument. A series of questions aimed at helping the physician to identify the particular aspects of treatment that are recognised as important to individual psoriasis patients was developed.ResultsKey findings of the literature search were grouped under themes of adherence, decision-making, quality of life, patient/physician goals, communication, patient-reported outcomes, satisfaction and patient benefit index. Several aspects of treatment were identified as being relevant when choosing a biological agent for an individual patient.The questionnaire is devised in two parts. The first part asks questions about patients’ experience of psoriasis and satisfaction with previous treatments. The second part aims to identify the treatment attributes patients consider to be important and may as such affect their preference for a particular biological treatment. The questionnaire results will allow the physician to understand the key factors that can be influenced by biological drug choice that are of importance to the patient. This information can be used be the physician in clinical decision making.Conclusion The questionnaire has been developed to provide a new tool to better understand and align patients’ and physicians’ preferences and goals for biological treatment of psoriasis.
    Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology 09/2015; DOI:10.1111/jdv.13248 · 2.83 Impact Factor