| Title |
Using qualitative research to facilitate the interpretation of quantitative results from a discrete choice experiment: insights from a survey in elderly ophthalmologic patients
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Patient preference and adherence, June 2016
|
| DOI | 10.2147/ppa.s101584 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Vera Vennedey, Marion Danner, Silvia MAA Evers, Sascha Fauser, Stephanie Stock, Carmen D Dirksen, Mickaël Hiligsmann |
| Abstract |
Age-related macular degeneration (AMD) is the leading cause of visual impairment and blindness in industrialized countries. Currently, mainly three treatment options are available, which are all intravitreal injections, but differ with regard to the frequency of injections needed, their approval status, and cost. This study aims to estimate patients' preferences for characteristics of treatment options for neovascular AMD. An interviewer-assisted discrete choice experiment was conducted among patients suffering from AMD treated with intravitreal injections. A Bayesian efficient design was used for the development of 12 choice tasks. In each task patients indicated their preference for one out of two treatment scenarios described by the attributes: side effects, approval status, effect on visual function, injection and monitoring frequency. While answering the choice tasks, patients were asked to think aloud and explain the reasons for choosing or rejecting specific characteristics. Quantitative data were analyzed with a mixed multinomial logit model. Eighty-six patients completed the questionnaire. Patients significantly preferred treatments that improve visual function, are approved, are administered in a pro re nata regimen (as needed), and are accompanied by bimonthly monitoring. Patients significantly disliked less frequent monitoring visits (every 4 months) and explained this was due to fear of deterioration being left unnoticed, and in turn experiencing disease deterioration. Significant preference heterogeneity was found for all levels except for bimonthly monitoring visits and severe, rare eye-related side effects. Patients gave clear explanations of their individual preferences during the interviews. Significant preference trends were discernible for the overall sample, despite the preference heterogeneity for most treatment characteristics. Patients like to be monitored and treated regularly, but not too frequently or infrequently. The results of our qualitative research facilitated the interpretation of the quantitative data collected in this study. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 51 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 51 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 13 | 25% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 12% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 8% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 8 | 16% |
| Unknown | 13 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 13 | 25% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 5 | 10% |
| Psychology | 4 | 8% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 6% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 11 | 22% |
| Unknown | 12 | 24% |
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 07 June 2016.
All research outputs
#19,942,887
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Patient preference and adherence
#1,293
of 1,757 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#254,505
of 353,651 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Patient preference and adherence
#47
of 65 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
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 is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% 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 353,651 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 65 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.