↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Assessing patient preferences in heart failure using conjoint methodology

Overview of attention for article published in Patient preference and adherence, August 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
39 Mendeley
Title
Assessing patient preferences in heart failure using conjoint methodology
Published in
Patient preference and adherence, August 2015
DOI 10.2147/ppa.s88167
Pubmed ID
Authors

Giovanni Pisa, Florian Eichmann, Stephan Hupfer

Abstract

The course of heart failure (HF) is characterized by frequent hospitalizations, a high mortality rate, as well as a severely impaired health-related quality of life (HRQoL). To optimize disease management, understanding of patient preferences is crucial. We aimed to assess patient preferences using conjoint methodology and HRQoL in patients with HF. Two modules were applied: an initial qualitative module, consisting of in-depth interviews with 12 HF patients, and the main quantitative module in 300 HF patients from across Germany. Patients were stratified according to the time of their last HF hospitalization. Each patient was presented with ten different scenarios during the conjoint exercise. Additionally, patients completed the generic HRQoL instrument, EuroQol health questionnaire (EQ-5D™). The attribute with the highest relative importance was dyspnea (44%), followed by physical capacity (18%). Of similar importance were exhaustion during mental activities (13%), fear due to HF (13%), and autonomy (12%). The most affected HRQoL dimensions according to the EQ-5D questionnaire were anxiety/depression (23% with severe problems), pain/discomfort (19%), and usual activities (15%). Overall average EQ-5D score was 0.39 with stable, chronic patients (never hospitalized) having a significantly better health state vs the rest of the cohort. This paper analyzed patient preference in HF using a conjoint methodology. The preference weights resulting from the conjoint analysis could be used in future to design HRQoL questionnaires which could better assess patient preferences in HF care.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
France 1 3%
Unknown 38 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 15%
Other 5 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 13%
Student > Master 5 13%
Other 3 8%
Unknown 10 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 18%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 6 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 13%
Social Sciences 3 8%
Psychology 2 5%
Other 5 13%
Unknown 11 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 27 August 2015.
All research outputs
#20,674,485
of 25,394,764 outputs
Outputs from Patient preference and adherence
#1,433
of 1,759 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#202,430
of 276,517 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Patient preference and adherence
#48
of 55 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,394,764 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,759 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.5. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 276,517 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 55 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.