| Title |
Patient preferences for important attributes of bipolar depression treatments: a discrete choice experiment
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Patient preference and adherence, December 2017
|
| DOI | 10.2147/ppa.s151561 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Daisy Ng-Mak, Jiat-Ling Poon, Laurie Roberts, Leah Kleinman, Dennis A Revicki, Krithika Rajagopalan |
| Abstract |
The purpose of this study was to assess patient preferences regarding pharmacological treatment attributes for bipolar depression using a discrete choice experiment (DCE). Adult members of an Internet survey panel with a self-reported diagnosis of bipolar depression were invited via e-mail to participate in a web-based DCE survey. Participants were asked to choose between hypothetical medication alternatives defined by attributes and levels that were varied systematically. The six treatment attributes included in the DCE were time to improvement, risk of becoming manic, weight gain, risk of sedation, increased blood sugar, and increased cholesterol. Attributes were supported by literature review, expert input, and results of focus groups with patients. Sawtooth CBC System for Choice-Based Conjoint Analysis was used to estimate the part-worth utilities for the DCE analyses. The analytical sample included 185 participants (50.8% females) from a total of 200 participants. The DCE analyses found weight gain to be the most important treatment attribute (relative importance =49.6%), followed by risk of sedation (20.2%), risk of mania (13.0%), increased blood sugar (8.3%), increased cholesterol (5.2%), and time to improvement (3.7%). Results from this DCE suggest that adults with bipolar depression considered risks of weight gain and sedation associated with pharmacotherapy as the most important attributes for the treatment of bipolar depression. Incorporating patient preferences in the treatment decision-making process may potentially have an impact on treatment adherence and satisfaction and, ultimately, patient outcomes. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 40% |
| United States | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 2 | 40% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 60% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 40% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 44 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 44 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 20% |
| Researcher | 8 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 7% |
| Other | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 3 | 7% |
| Unknown | 13 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 10 | 23% |
| Psychology | 6 | 14% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 4 | 9% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 7% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 5 | 11% |
| Unknown | 14 | 32% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 29 July 2018.
All research outputs
#7,692,145
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Patient preference and adherence
#546
of 1,757 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#139,175
of 444,941 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Patient preference and adherence
#9
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,757 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 444,941 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 30 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.