Towards patient-centered care for depression: Conjoint methods to tailor treatment based on preferences

Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
The patient (Impact Factor: 1.9). 01/2010; 3(3):145-157. DOI: 10.2165/11530660
Source: PubMed


BACKGROUND: Although antidepressants and counseling have been shown to be effective in treating patients with depression, non-treatment or under-treatment for depression is common especially among the elderly and minorities. Previous work on patient preferences has focused on medication versus counseling, but less is known about the value patients place on attributes of medication and counseling. OBJECTIVE: Conjoint analysis has been recognized as a valuable means of assessing patient treatment preferences. We examine how conjoint analysis be used to determine the relative importance of various attributes of depression treatment at the group level as well as to determine the range of individual-level relative preference weights for specific depression treatment attributes. In addition we use conjoint analysis to predict what modifications in treatment characteristics are associated with a change in the stated preferred alternative. STUDY DESIGN: 86 adults who participated in an internet-based panel responded to an on-line discrete choice task about depression treatment. Participants chose between medication and counseling based on choice sets presented first for a "mild depression" scenario and then for a "severe depression" scenario. Participants were given 18 choice sets which varied for medication based on type of side effect (nausea, dizziness, and sexual dysfunction) and severity of side effect (mild, moderate, and severe); and for counseling based on frequency of counseling sessions (once per week or every other week) and location of the sessions (mental health professional's office, primary care doctor's office or office of a spiritual counselor). RESULTS: Treatment type (counseling vs. medication) appeared to be more important in driving treatment choice than any specific attribute that was studied. Specifically counseling was preferred by most of the respondents. After treatment type, location of treatment and frequency of treatment were important considerations. Preferred attributes were similar in both the mild and severe depression scenarios. Side effect severity appeared to be most important in driving treatment choice as compared with the other attributes studied. Individual-level relative preferences for treatment type revealed a distribution that was roughly bimodal with 27 participants who had a strong preference for counseling and 14 respondents who had a strong preference for medication. CONCLUSION: Estimating individual-level preferences for treatment type allowed us to see the variability in preferences and determine which participants had a strong affinity for medication or counseling.

Download full-text


Available from: Joseph Gallo, Aug 11, 2014
18 Reads
  • Source
    • "Finally, this investigation may offer further insight about perceptions of patients who have directly experienced the disease and about their evaluation of different aspects of testing for cancer treatment. This information can potentially help physicians to offer treatment options that better match patients values and preferences [10]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The extent to which a genomic test will be used in practice is affected by factors such as ability of the test to correctly predict response to treatment (i.e. sensitivity and specificity of the test), invasiveness of the testing procedure, test cost, and the probability and severity of side effects associated with treatment. Using discrete choice experimentation (DCE), we elicited preferences of the public (Sample 1, N = 533 and Sample 2, N = 525) and cancer patients (Sample 3, N = 38) for different attributes of a hypothetical genomic test for guiding cancer treatment. Samples 1 and 3 considered the test/treatment in the context of an aggressive curable cancer (scenario A) while the scenario for sample 2 was based on a non-aggressive incurable cancer (scenario B). In aggressive curable cancer (scenario A), everything else being equal, the odds ratio (OR) of choosing a test with 95% sensitivity was 1.41 (versus a test with 50% sensitivity) and willingness to pay (WTP) was $1331, on average, for this amount of improvement in test sensitivity. In this scenario, the OR of choosing a test with 95% specificity was 1.24 times that of a test with 50% specificity (WTP = $827). In non-aggressive incurable cancer (scenario B), the OR of choosing a test with 95% sensitivity was 1.65 (WTP = $1344), and the OR of choosing a test with 95% specificity was 1.50 (WTP = $1080). Reducing severity of treatment side effects from severe to mild was associated with large ORs in both scenarios (OR = 2.10 and 2.24 in scenario A and B, respectively). In contrast, patients had a very large preference for 95% sensitivity of the test (OR = 5.23). The type and prognosis of cancer affected preferences for genomically-guided treatment. In aggressive curable cancer, individuals emphasized more on the sensitivity rather than the specificity of the test. In contrast, for a non-aggressive incurable cancer, individuals put similar emphasis on sensitivity and specificity of the test. While the public expressed strong preference toward lowering severity of side effects, improving sensitivity of the test had by far the largest influence on patients' decision to use genomic testing.
    BMC Health Services Research 10/2013; 13(1):454. DOI:10.1186/1472-6963-13-454 · 1.71 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "Both lay and clinical populations have been surveyed to understand attitudes toward various treatment options for depression. People surveyed about treatments for depression often are concerned about potential side effects of antidepressant medications and may believe that antidepressants are addictive, and these beliefs may affect their willingness to pursue treatment.50–53 Cost and time commitment may be issues preventing patients from pursuing talking therapy.54 "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Patient treatment preferences are of growing interest to researchers, clinicians, and patients. In this review, an overview of the most commonly recommended treatments for depression is provided, along with a brief review of the evidence supporting their efficacy. Studies examining the effect of patient treatment preferences on treatment course and outcome are summarized. Existing literature on what treatment options patients tend to prefer and believe to be helpful, and what factors may affect these preferences, is also reviewed. Finally, clinical implications of research findings on patient preferences for depression management are discussed. In summary, although our knowledge of the impact of patient preferences on treatment course and outcome is limited, knowing and considering those preferences may be clinically important and worthy of greater study for evidence-based practice.
    Patient Preference and Adherence 10/2013; 7:1047-1057. DOI:10.2147/PPA.S52746 · 1.68 Impact Factor
  • Source
Show more